Benefits, Challenges and Potential Strategies of Open Source Health Economic Models

Dunlop, W.; Mason, Nicola G.; Kenworthy, James; Akehurst, Ron

doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0479-8

Cited by 51 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Needless to say, the resulting models should also be available to anyone who wants to use them. This is in line with recent calls for "open-source" models [29]. Having many eyes poring over the conceptualization, the structure, its implementation, and all other aspects of the model over broad periods of time has a much better chance of uncovering problems than the rushed verification typical of bespoke models.…”

Section: A Pragmatic Solution?supporting

confidence: 75%

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models have become a nearly essential component of health technology assessment. This is because the efficacy and safety data available from clinical trials are insufficient to provide the required estimates of impact of new interventions over long periods of time and for other populations and subgroups. Despite more than five decades of use of these decision-analytic models, decision makers are still often presented with poorly validated models and thus trust in their results is impaired. Among the reasons for this vexing situation are the artificial nature of the models, impairing their validation against observable data, the complexity in their formulation and implementation, the lack of data against which to validate the model results, and the challenges of short timelines and insufficient resources. This article addresses this crucial problem of achieving models that produce results that can be trusted and the resulting requirements for validation and transparency, areas where our field is currently deficient. Based on their differing perspectives and experiences, the authors characterize the situation and outline the requirements for improvement and pragmatic solutions to the problem of inadequate validation.

show abstract

Section: A Pragmatic Solution?supporting

confidence: 75%

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been a recent debate emphasizing the need to improve transparency in decision making. We have therefore made our model available online in R format to ensure transparency and help facilitate future research and policy recommendations [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Take-Home Naloxone for the Prevention of Overdose Fatalities among Heroin Users in the United Kingdom

Langham¹,

Wright²,

Kenworthy

et al. 2018

Value in Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our evaluation suggests that the distribution of take-home naloxone decreased overdose deaths by around 6.6% and was cost-effective with an incremental cost per QALY gained well below a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold set by UK decision-makers. The model code has been made available to aid future research. Further study is warranted on the impact of different formulations of naloxone on cost-effectiveness and the impact take-home naloxone has on the wider society.

show abstract

“…Decisions about the use of new interventions in healthcare are often based on health economic evaluations. Efforts to increase transparent conduct and reporting of health economic evaluations have existed for many years 20–30. For example, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement,30 first published in March 2013, provides recommendations for authors, peer reviewers and journal editors regarding how to prepare reports of health economic evaluations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a potential measure of impact,31 CHEERS has been cited over 1000 times in the Web of Science. However, little attention has been given to reproducibility practices such as sharing of study protocols, data and analytic methods (which allow others to recreate the study findings) as part of health economic evaluation studies 22–25 29…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility.Methods and analysisThis is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012–2019 and 2019–2022.Ethics and disseminationDue to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

show abstract

Benefits, Challenges and Potential Strategies of Open Source Health Economic Models

Cited by 51 publications

References 11 publications

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

Cost-Effectiveness of Take-Home Naloxone for the Prevention of Overdose Fatalities among Heroin Users in the United Kingdom

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About