Analytic approaches for research priority-setting: issues, challenges and the way forward

References

• National Institute for Health Research. NIHR annual report 2013/2014. Available from: www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/about-NIHR/NIHR-Publications/NIHR-Annual-Reports/NIHR%20Annual%20Report%202013_2014.pdf [Last accessed 18 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• National institutes of health. peer review process. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#Criteria [Last accessed 15 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Mishan EJ. Cost Benefit Analysis. Macmillan Books; London, UK: 1971
   Google Scholar
• Sugden R, Williams AH. The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1978
   Google Scholar
• Harris A. Economic evaluation and the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in Australia. Centre for Health Programme Evaluation; West Heilderberg, Australia: 1994
   Google Scholar
• Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Hoffmann C. Review of European guidelines for economic evaluation of medical technologies and pharmaceuticals. Health Econ Prevent and Care 2000;1(1):2-8
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for D, Technologies in H. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd edition Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(7):iii-x
   Google Scholar
• Weisbrod BA. Costs and benefits of medical research: a case study of poliomyelitis. The J Polit Econ 1971;79(3):527-44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson MS. Decision-analytic determination of study size. The case of electronic fetal monitoring. Med Decis Making 1981;1(2):165-79
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eddy DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5(4):485-501
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Detsky AS. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials. Stat Med 1990;9(1-2):173-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16(1):73-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, et al. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(23):iii-125
   Google Scholar
• Fleurence R, Torgerson D. Setting priorities for research. Health Policy 2004;69:1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleurence R. Setting priorities for research: A practical application of ’payback’ and expected value of information. Health Econ 2007;16:12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steuten L, van de Wetering G, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K, Retel V. A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice. PharmacoEcon 2013;31(1):25-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson M, Sox H. Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment. A Model Process National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 1992
   Google Scholar
• Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessment - Theoretical considerations and practical approaches - A paper produced by the priority setting subgroup of the EUR ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997;13(2):144-85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lara M, Goodman C. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: report of a pilot study. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 1990
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health Research. NIHR HTA researcher-led funding stream. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/funding/hta-researcher-led [Last accessed 15 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Cancer Research UK. Phase III Clinical Trial Grants. Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/funding-for-researchers/our-funding-schemes/phase-iii-clinical-trial-grants [Last accessed 15 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme. Researcher-led funding stream. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/funding/eme-researcher-led [Last accessed 16 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health Research. NIHR HTA commissioned funding opportunities. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/funding/hta-commissioned [Last accessed 01 July 2015]
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme. EME commissioned remit. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/funding/eme-commissioned [Last accessed 01 July 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Douw K, Vondeling H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22(02):177-83
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oortwijn W, Banta D, Vondeling H, Bouter L. Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: actors and activities. Health Policy 1999;47(3):241-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. Identifying new health technologies. In: The advanced book of methods in evidence based healthcare. Stevens A, Abrams K Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R, Lilford R, editors. SAGE Publications, London. 2001
   Google Scholar
• Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: Setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Quarterly 2003;81(3):363-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi F. Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice. Health Policy 2003;63(2):141-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? Br Med J 1995;310(6990):1315-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect 2008;11(3):282-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle V, Calnan M, Dieppe P. Consumer involvement in setting the health services research agenda: Persistent questions of value. J Health Serv Res Pol 2008;13:suppl. 3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health Research HTA. FAQ: What criteria will be used to assess my proposal? NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/faqs/application-and-assessment [Last accessed 5 July 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Efficacy and mechanism evaluation programme. EME application process. Available from: www.eme.ac.uk/funding/application_process.asp [Last accessed 09 March 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Townsend J, Buxton M. Cost effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy 1997;39(3):181-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18(2):S68-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996;5(6):513-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, et al. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(53):iii-xi
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, et al. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Med 2014;12:99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L. Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2013;9(1):17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Sculpher M. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience. PharmacoEcon 2006;24(11):1055-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(20):iii 1-82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond MF, Crump BJ, Little VA. Funding research and development in the NHS. Lancet 1992;339(8787):230-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18(3):341-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle RG. Decision analysis. Thomas Nelson and Sons; London: 1972
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(31):iii-60
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Neumann PJ, Araki S, Weinstein MC. Bayesian value-of-information analysis. An application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17(1):38-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Palmer S. Identifying research priorities: The value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration. Med Decis Making 2008;28(1):33-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornberger J, Eghtesady P. The cost-benefit of a randomized trial to a health care organization. Control Clin Trials 1998;19(2):198-211
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making 1988;8(4):279-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med 2005;24(12):1791-806
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Thompson KM. A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ 2001;20(5):797-822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 2008;28(1):21-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S. The half-life of truth: what are appropriate time horizons for research decisions? Med Decis Making 2008;28(3):287-99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MP, Koffijberg H. Enhancing value of information analyses. Value Health 2009;12(6):935-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ 2010;19(5):549-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyle M. Historical lifetimes of drugs in England: Application to value of information and cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health 2010;13(8):885-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price MJ, Welton NJ, Briggs AH, Ades AE. Model averaging in the presence of structural uncertainty about treatment effects: influence on treatment decision and expected value of information. Value Health 2011;14(2):205-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madan J, Ades AE, Price M, et al. Strategies for efficient computation of the expected value of partial perfect information. Med Decis Making 2014;34(3):327-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? Brit Med J 2004;329(7476):1233-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National institute for health and clinical excellence. scientific and social value judgements. national institute for health and clinical excellence. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/media/default/About/what-we-do/Research-and-development/Social-Value-Judgements-principles-for-the-development-of-NICE-guidance.pdf [Last accessed 14 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Shah K, Cookson R, Culyer AJ, Littlejohns P. NICE’s Social Value Judgements about Equity in Health and Health Care. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, 2011. Available from: www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP70_Nice%27s_social_value_judgements_about_equity_in_health.pdf [Last Accessed 16 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, DeKay ML, Baron J, Asch DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints–is it equitable? New Eng J Med 1996;334(18):1174-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000;51(1):19-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi F, Archard L, Le GJ. Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare. Health Technol Assess 2001;5(3):1-138
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. John Wiley & Sons; Chichester, UK: 2004
   Google Scholar
• Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information literature analysis: a review of applications in health risk management. Med Decis Making 2004;24(3):287-98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2006
   Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. Br Med J 2004;329(7459):224-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan A, Kharroubi S, O’Hagan A, Chilcott J. Calculating partial expected value of perfect information via Monte Carlo sampling algorithms. Med Decis Making 2007;27(4):448-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 2004;24(2):207-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan A, Kharroubi SA. Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation. J Health Econ 2007;26(1):122-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakley JEB. Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations. J Health Econ 2010;29(3):468-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadatsafavi M, Bansback N, Zafari Z, et al. Need for speed: an efficient algorithm for calculation of single-parameter expected value of partial perfect information. Value Health 2013;16(2):438-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strong M, Oakley JE. An efficient method for computing single-parameter partial expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making 2013;33(6):755-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A, Breeze P. Estimating the expected value of sample information using the probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a fast, nonparametric regression-based method. Med Decis Making 2015;35(5):570-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalal H, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Kuntz KM. Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling. Med Decis Making 2015;35(5):584-95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn J, Coast J, Andronis L. Interpretation of the expected value of perfect information and research recommendations: a systematic review and empirical investigation. Med Decis Making. 2015. Epub ahead of print Available from: http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/05/18/0272989X155865052.long [Last accessed 18 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J, et al. Decision making in health and medicine. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2001
   Google Scholar
• Department for transport. guidance document TAG Unit 3.5.4: Cost benefit analysis. department for transport, UK 2012. Available from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:p0lEmTXC9EYJ:www.ngtmetro.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D4294968172+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [Last accessed 4 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Welton NJ, Thom HH. Value of Information: We’ve Got Speed, What More Do We Need? Med Decis Making 2015;35(5):564-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadatsafavi M, Marra C, Bryan S. Two-level resampling as a novel method for the calculation of the expected value of sample information in economic trials. Health Econ 2013;22(7):877-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economic and social research council. health of social science strategy. Available from: www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/governance/committees/training-skills/health-soc-sci.aspx [Last accessed 16 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health Research. NIHR master studentships in economics of health. Available from: www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/masters-studentships-in-economics-of-health.htm [Last accessed 1 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• NIHR HTA. NIHR HTA: working with policy customers. Available from: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/66875/policy-customers-leaflet.pdf [Last accessed 3 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, et al. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(46):1-323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckermann S, Willan AR. The option value of delay in health technology assessment. Med Decis Making 2008;28(3):300-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar