Cargando…
Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions
Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach i...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30288400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468316642238 |
_version_ | 1783353110290235392 |
---|---|
author | Tuffaha, Haitham W. Gordon, Louisa G. Scuffham, Paul A. |
author_facet | Tuffaha, Haitham W. Gordon, Louisa G. Scuffham, Paul A. |
author_sort | Tuffaha, Haitham W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach in practice remains limited. Objectives: To apply VOI analysis in health care interventions to guide adoption decisions, optimize trial design, and prioritize research. Methods: The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia. It included four interventions: clinically indicated catheter replacement, tissue adhesive for securing catheters, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in caesarean sections, and nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers. For each intervention, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, decision uncertainty characterized, and VOI calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The benefits and costs of additional research were considered together with the costs and consequences of acting now versus waiting for more information. All values are reported in 2014 Australian dollars (AU$). Results: All interventions were cost-effective, but with various levels of decision uncertainty. The current evidence is sufficient to support the adoption of clinically indicated catheter replacement. For the tissue adhesive, an additional study before adoption is worthwhile with a four-arm trial of 220 patients per arm. Additional research on NPWT before adoption is worthwhile with a two-arm trial of 200 patients per arm. Nutritional support should be adopted with a two-arm trial of 1200 patients per arm. Based on the expected net monetary benefits, the studies were ranked as follows: 1) NPWT (AU$1.2 million), 2) tissue adhesive (AU$0.3 milliion), and 3) nutritional support (AU$0.1 million). Conclusions: VOI analysis is a useful and practical approach to inform adoption and research decisions. Efforts should be focused on facilitating its integration into decision making frameworks. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6125050 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61250502018-10-04 Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions Tuffaha, Haitham W. Gordon, Louisa G. Scuffham, Paul A. MDM Policy Pract Original Article Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach in practice remains limited. Objectives: To apply VOI analysis in health care interventions to guide adoption decisions, optimize trial design, and prioritize research. Methods: The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia. It included four interventions: clinically indicated catheter replacement, tissue adhesive for securing catheters, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in caesarean sections, and nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers. For each intervention, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, decision uncertainty characterized, and VOI calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The benefits and costs of additional research were considered together with the costs and consequences of acting now versus waiting for more information. All values are reported in 2014 Australian dollars (AU$). Results: All interventions were cost-effective, but with various levels of decision uncertainty. The current evidence is sufficient to support the adoption of clinically indicated catheter replacement. For the tissue adhesive, an additional study before adoption is worthwhile with a four-arm trial of 220 patients per arm. Additional research on NPWT before adoption is worthwhile with a two-arm trial of 200 patients per arm. Nutritional support should be adopted with a two-arm trial of 1200 patients per arm. Based on the expected net monetary benefits, the studies were ranked as follows: 1) NPWT (AU$1.2 million), 2) tissue adhesive (AU$0.3 milliion), and 3) nutritional support (AU$0.1 million). Conclusions: VOI analysis is a useful and practical approach to inform adoption and research decisions. Efforts should be focused on facilitating its integration into decision making frameworks. SAGE Publications 2016-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6125050/ /pubmed/30288400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468316642238 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tuffaha, Haitham W. Gordon, Louisa G. Scuffham, Paul A. Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title | Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research
Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title_full | Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research
Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title_fullStr | Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research
Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research
Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title_short | Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research
Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions |
title_sort | value of information analysis informing adoption and research
decisions in a portfolio of health care interventions |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30288400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468316642238 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tuffahahaithamw valueofinformationanalysisinformingadoptionandresearchdecisionsinaportfolioofhealthcareinterventions AT gordonlouisag valueofinformationanalysisinformingadoptionandresearchdecisionsinaportfolioofhealthcareinterventions AT scuffhampaula valueofinformationanalysisinformingadoptionandresearchdecisionsinaportfolioofhealthcareinterventions |