The credibility of health economic models for health policy decision-making: the case of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Campbell, H., Briggs, A.H. , Buxton, M., Kim, L. and Thompson, S. (2007) The credibility of health economic models for health policy decision-making: the case of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), pp. 11-17. (doi:10.1258/135581907779497594)

[img]
Preview
Text
Briggs4160.pdf

299kB

Publisher's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/135581907779497594

Abstract

<i>Objectives</i>: To review health economic models of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among elderly males and assess their credibility for informing decision-making. <i>Methods</i>: A literature review identified health economic models of ultrasound screening for AAA. For each model focussing on population screening in elderly males, model structure and input parameter values were critically appraised using published good practice guidelines for decision analytic models. <i>Results</i>: Twelve models published between 1989 and 2003 were identified. Converting costs to a common currency and base year, substantial variability in cost-effectiveness results were revealed. Appraisals carried out for the nine models focusing on population screening showed differences in their complexity, with the simpler models generating results most favourable to screening. Eight of the nine models incorporated two or more simplifying structural assumptions favouring screening; uncertainty surrounding these assumptions was not investigated by any model. Quality assessments on a small number of parameters revealed input values varied between models, methods used to identify and incorporate input data were often not described, and few sensitivity analyses were reported. <i>Conclusions</i>: Large variation exists in the cost-effectiveness results generated by AAA screening models. The substantial number of factors potentially contributing to such disparities means that reconciliation of model results is impossible. In addition, poor reporting of methods makes it difficult to identify the most plausible and thus most useful model of those developed.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Briggs, Professor Andrew
Authors: Campbell, H., Briggs, A.H., Buxton, M., Kim, L., and Thompson, S.
Subjects:R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
H Social Sciences > HJ Public Finance
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
Journal Name:Journal of Health Services Research and Policy
Publisher:Royal Society of Medicine
ISSN:1355-8196
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2007 Royal Society of Medicine
First Published:First published in Journal of Health Service Research and Policy 12(1):11-17
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record