Conceptualizing a Model: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2

Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, USA, and Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (MR).
Medical Decision Making (Impact Factor: 2.27). 09/2012; 32(5):678-689. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12454941
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The appropriate development of a model begins with understanding the problem that is being represented. The aim of this article is to provide a series of consensus-based best practices regarding the process of model conceptualization. For the purpose of this series of papers, the authors consider the development of models whose purpose is to inform medical decisions and health-related resource allocation questions. They specifically divide the conceptualization process into two distinct components: the conceptualization of the problem, which converts knowledge of the health care process or decision into a representation of the problem, followed by the conceptualization of the model itself, which matches the attributes and characteristics of a particular modeling type to the needs of the problem being represented. Recommendations are made regarding the structure of the modeling team, agreement on the statement of the problem, the structure, perspective and target population of the model, and the interventions and outcomes represented. Best practices relating to the specific characteristics of model structure, and which characteristics of the problem might be most easily represented in a specific modeling method, are presented. Each section contains a number of recommendations that were iterated among the authors, as well as the wider modeling taskforce, jointly set up by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model’s report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a “fatal flaw” indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.
    Value in Health 03/2014; 17(2):174–182. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs). A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template. Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated. Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.
    Value in Health 01/2014; 17(1):116-30. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.005 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Medical Decision Making 09/2012; 32(5):656-9. DOI:10.1177/0272989X12458978 · 2.27 Impact Factor