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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tuffaha, Haitham W., Gordon, Louisa G., Scuffham, Paul A.
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