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: 3.24). 09/2012; 32(5):678-689. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12454941
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: M. Krahn, Jul 29, 2015
15 Reads
  • Source
    • "providing guidance on state-transition models, such as Markov models [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. Methods focused on in this report (SD, DES, and ABM) were selected on the basis of their suitability to address problems in health care delivery systems and ability to simulate dynamically the interactions between operations, structures , and relationships in the health care system (Table 3). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health care delivery systems are inherently complex, consisting of multiple tiers of interdependent subsystems and processes that are adaptive to changes in the environment and behave in a nonlinear fashion. Traditional health technology assessment and modeling methods often neglect the wider health system impacts that can be critical for achieving desired health system goals and are often of limited usefulness when applied to complex health systems. Researchers and health care decision makers can either underestimate or fail to consider the interactions among the people, processes, technology, and facility designs. Health care delivery system interventions need to incorporate the dynamics and complexities of the health care system context in which the intervention is delivered. This report provides an overview of common dynamic simulation modeling methods and examples of health care system interventions in which such methods could be useful. Three dynamic simulation modeling methods are presented to evaluate system interventions for health care delivery: system dynamics, discrete event simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast to conventional evaluations, a dynamic systems approach incorporates the complexity of the system and anticipates the upstream and downstream consequences of changes in complex health care delivery systems. This report assists researchers and decision makers in deciding whether these simulation methods are appropriate to address specific health system problems through an eight-point checklist referred to as the SIMULATE (System, Interactions, Multilevel, Understanding, Loops, Agents, Time, Emergence) tool. It is a primer for researchers and decision makers working in health care delivery and implementation sciences who face complex challenges in delivering effective and efficient care that can be addressed with system interventions. On reviewing this report, the readers should be able to identify whether these simulation modeling methods are appropriate to answer the problem they are addressing and to recognize the differences of these methods from other modeling approaches used typically in health technology assessment applications. Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Value in Health 03/2015; 18(1):5-16. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.001 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "We define a probabilistic Markov analytical decision Model which simulates disease progression [14,15] in RCC. The Markov Model (Figure 1) is a memoryless process which describes the evolution of disease between health states in a stochastic way based on the transition probabilities [16], which depend only on the current state of the process and not on previous states. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundThe continuing increase of pharmaceutical expenditure calls for new approaches to pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. Value based pricing of pharmaceuticals is emerging as a useful tool and possess theoretical attributes to help health system cope with rising pharmaceutical expenditure.AimTo assess the feasibility of introducing a value-based pricing scheme of pharmaceuticals in Cyprus and explore the integrative framework.MethodsA probabilistic Markov chain Monte Carlo model was created to simulate progression of advanced renal cell cancer for comparison of sorafenib to standard best supportive care. Literature review was performed and efficacy data were transferred from a published landmark trial, while official pricelists and clinical guidelines from Cyprus Ministry of Health were utilised for cost calculation. Based on proposed willingness to pay threshold the maximum price of sorafenib for the indication of second line renal cell cancer was assessed.ResultsSorafenib value based price was found to be significantly lower compared to its current reference price.ConclusionFeasibility of Value Based Pricing is documented and pharmacoeconomic modelling can lead to robust results. Integration of value and affordability in the price are its main advantages which have to be weighed against lack of documentation for several theoretical parameters that influence outcome. Smaller countries such as Cyprus may experience adversities in establishing and sustaining essential structures for this scheme.
    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 05/2014; 12(1). DOI:10.1186/1478-7547-12-12 · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Like any other source of information, mathematical models have limitations that decision makers should understand before they use the models' results [9]. All models involve assumptions about the clinical condition and its course, possible interventions and their effects, the behavior of people involved (patients, clinicians , caregivers, etc.), and other determinants of what may happen [10]. Some of these assumptions are encoded mathematically in equations that relate the change in one parameter 1098-3015/$36.00 – see front matter Copyright & 2014, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). "
    [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 · 3.28 Impact Factor
Show more