Health Economists on Involving Patients in Modeling: Potential Benefits, Harms, and Variables of Interest

Abstract

Background Patient involvement in health economics modeling has been advocated on numerous grounds, including as a way to better manage social and ethical value judgments in the modeling process. However, some have pointed to potential risks and variables that could influence the overall benefit of involvement. To inform future research, there is a need to generate knowledge on potential benefits, harms, and variables relevant to patient involvement in health economics modeling. Methods This analysis used data from a qualitative study in which 22 health economists were asked their views on the possibility of involving patients in the modeling process. Using qualitative methods, the authors organized participants' responses into theory-driven categories (“potential benefits”, “potential harms”, “variables of interest”) and identified data-driven themes and subthemes within those categories. Results Findings point to potential benefits and harms to the model, modeler, patient, and modeling process. Variables of interest relevant to future research included patients' specific roles, modeler and patient characteristics, the goals of modeling, dynamics among participators, and features of high-level procedures. The findings raise a number of specific questions that may be fruitful to explore in future research on patient involvement in health economics modeling. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01018-5.

Collaborating with Patient Partners to Model Clinical Care Pathways in Major Depressive Disorder: The Benefits of Mixing Evidence and Lived Experience

“…These are especially valuable contributions because there is a gap in the literature on patient-partnered research effects on intermediate and long-term research impacts [1]. Finally, our findings are in line with a recent survey of health economists regarding patient collaboration [6], in that we discovered benefits, not only to the model and the research process, but also to the modeler and patient partners themselves, despite initial feelings of uncertainty.…”

“…At first, the research team was uncertain about how each team member might best contribute to the modeling. There were considerations of potential benefits and costs to the model and modeling process, and perhaps most importantly, to the patient partners and the other members of the research team [6,9]. These considerations did not exist independently of one another.…”

“…Although coding intricate and often divergent healthcare pathways into a simulation model is a complex task, the opportunity to involve patients in the modeling process offers rewards for modelers and patient partners alike. These include increasing modelers' contextual knowledge and giving a sense of potential impact and motivation and increasing patient partners' feelings of ownership of findings as well as fostering a greater understanding and possible public acceptance of the model [5][6][7]. There are also arguments that the model itself is likely to benefit from increased credibility, salience, and legitimacy as a result of patient involvement [7].…”

The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: Building on policy drivers

“…For example, Hannigan ( 63 ) argues for the need for more direct involvement of partners in quantitative data analysis and statistical modeling. Patients and the public have been described as the missing stakeholder group in the modeling process and the benefits of participatory approaches to modeling are increasingly being recognized ( 64 , 65 ). Quantitative data are “not just numbers, they are numbers with a context,” and a key strength of PHR is better understanding context ( 51 ).…”