Tools
ToolsThorn, Joanna C., Davies, Charlotte F., Brookes, Sara T., Noble, Sian M., Dritsaki, Melina, Gray, Ewan, Hughes, Dyfrig A., Mihaylova, Borislava, Petrou, Stavros, Ridyard, Colin, Sach, Tracey, Wilson, Edward C. F., Wordsworth, Sarah and Hollingworth, William (2021) Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value in Health, 24 (4). pp. 539-547. ISSN 1098-3015
Preview |
PDF (Accepted_Manuscript)
- Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (354kB) | Preview |
Preview |
PDF (Published_Version)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objectives. Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised trials. Methods. A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least) to 9 (most) important, suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant’s own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to re-rate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinise the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.Results. 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n=9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. Conclusions. Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | health economic analysis plans,economic evaluation |
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Health Economics Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Norwich Clinical Trials Unit Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Public Health and Health Services Research (former - to 2023) Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Norwich Institute for Healthy Aging Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Population Health |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 01 Dec 2020 00:54 |
| Last Modified: | 06 Feb 2025 09:24 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77845 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.002 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |