Tools
Tools
Thorn, 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 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220, Wilson, Edward C. F. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8369-1577, 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 Jun 2024 15:12 |
| 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 |