Abstract
Introduction
Expert judgement has a role in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to produce reporting criteria for two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation (quantitative) study; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate (qualitative) expert opinion.
Methods
A two-round online Delphi process identified the degree of consensus for four core definitions (expert; expert parameter values; expert elicitation study; expert opinion) and two sets of reporting criteria in a purposive sample of experts. The initial set of reporting criteria comprised 17 statements for reporting a study to elicit parameter values and/or distributions and 11 statements for reporting a Delphi survey to obtain expert opinion. Fifty experts were invited to become members of the Delphi process panel by e-mail. Data analysis summarised the extent of agreement (using a pre-defined 75 % ‘consensus’ threshold) on the definitions and suggested reporting criteria. Free-text comments were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results
The final panel comprised 12 experts. Consensus was achieved for the definitions of expert (88 %); expert parameter values (83 %); and expert elicitation study (83 %). The panel recommended criteria to use when reporting an expert elicitation study (16 criteria) and a Delphi study to collate expert opinion (11 criteria).
Conclusion
This study has produced guidelines for reporting two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation study requiring 16 reporting criteria; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate expert opinion requiring 11 reporting criteria.
Expert judgement has a role in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to produce reporting criteria for two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation (quantitative) study; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate (qualitative) expert opinion.
Methods
A two-round online Delphi process identified the degree of consensus for four core definitions (expert; expert parameter values; expert elicitation study; expert opinion) and two sets of reporting criteria in a purposive sample of experts. The initial set of reporting criteria comprised 17 statements for reporting a study to elicit parameter values and/or distributions and 11 statements for reporting a Delphi survey to obtain expert opinion. Fifty experts were invited to become members of the Delphi process panel by e-mail. Data analysis summarised the extent of agreement (using a pre-defined 75 % ‘consensus’ threshold) on the definitions and suggested reporting criteria. Free-text comments were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results
The final panel comprised 12 experts. Consensus was achieved for the definitions of expert (88 %); expert parameter values (83 %); and expert elicitation study (83 %). The panel recommended criteria to use when reporting an expert elicitation study (16 criteria) and a Delphi study to collate expert opinion (11 criteria).
Conclusion
This study has produced guidelines for reporting two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation study requiring 16 reporting criteria; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate expert opinion requiring 11 reporting criteria.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1161-1172 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | PharmacoEconomics |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 30 Jun 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2016 |