Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: A review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Abstract

Objectives:The aim of this study was to establish a list of priority topics for methods research to support decision making at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Methods: Potential priorities for methods research topics were identified through a focused literature review, interviews, an email survey, a workshop and a Web-based feedback exercise. Participants were members of the NICE secretariat and its advisory bodies, representatives from academia, industry, and other organizations working closely with NICE. The Web exercise was open to anyone to complete but publicized among the above groups. Results: A list of potential topics was collated. Priorities for further research differed according to the type of respondent and the extent to which they work directly with NICE. Priorities emerging from the group closest to NICE included: methodology for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons; synthesis of qualitative evidence; research relating to the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in decision making; methods and empirical research for establishing the cost-effectiveness threshold; and determining how data on the uncertainty of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data should be taken into account in the decision-making process. Priorities emerging from the broadest group ofThe authors acknowledge the wider group of researchers who contributed to this study:

Using Hormones to Manage Dairy Cow Fertility: The Clinical and Ethical Beliefs of Veterinary Practitioners

“…First, how to define and measure a cow’s quality of life, and second how to weigh length versus quality of cow life. In human medicine, the quandary of weighing length versus quality of life has seen ‘quality adjusted life years’ (QALY) used for healthcare resource allocation by organizations such as The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; although QALY is controversial [33] and in need of further research [34]. No equivalent practical decision making tool exists for veterinary practitioners, and the issues involved in developing any such measure are different and arguably even more complex.…”

Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool

“…The need for a broader, objective, and inclusive view of the available evidence increased the interest of researchers and funding bodies for 'comparative effectiveness reviews' (Longworth et al, 2011;Mitka, 2010) or 'comparing multiple interventions review'. Such reviews provide an evidence base that reflects the network of comparisons that arises when collating studies involving different subsets of competing treatments (Caldwell et al, 2005;Jansen et al, 2011;Lu and Ades, 2004;Salanti et al, 2008a;Welton et al, 2008).…”

An agenda for UK clinical pharmacology: Pharmacoeconomics

“…Here I shall review key priority areas for further research in pharmacoeconomics. I shall focus mainly on methodological research priorities associated with economic evaluation and appraisal of medicines, and draw on the findings of a scoping project commissioned by NICE and the Medical Research Council (MRC) [3]. However, in the parent discipline of economics, the potential application of behavioural economics is also discussed, this being part of the current coalition Government's ‘nudge’ policies to influence behaviour [4].…”