Cargando…

EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment

BACKGROUND: Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grigore, Bogdan, Peters, Jaime, Hyde, Christopher, Stein, Ken
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28870196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0
_version_ 1783261482141614080
author Grigore, Bogdan
Peters, Jaime
Hyde, Christopher
Stein, Ken
author_facet Grigore, Bogdan
Peters, Jaime
Hyde, Christopher
Stein, Ken
author_sort Grigore, Bogdan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs. METHODS: An Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: EXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5584524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55845242017-09-06 EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment Grigore, Bogdan Peters, Jaime Hyde, Christopher Stein, Ken BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs. METHODS: An Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: EXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required. BioMed Central 2017-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5584524/ /pubmed/28870196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grigore, Bogdan
Peters, Jaime
Hyde, Christopher
Stein, Ken
EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title_full EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title_fullStr EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title_full_unstemmed EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title_short EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
title_sort explicit: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28870196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0
work_keys_str_mv AT grigorebogdan explicitafeasibilitystudyofremoteexpertelicitationinhealthtechnologyassessment
AT petersjaime explicitafeasibilitystudyofremoteexpertelicitationinhealthtechnologyassessment
AT hydechristopher explicitafeasibilitystudyofremoteexpertelicitationinhealthtechnologyassessment
AT steinken explicitafeasibilitystudyofremoteexpertelicitationinhealthtechnologyassessment