Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey

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, 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

[img] PDF (Accepted_Manuscript) - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 28 November 2021.

Download (354kB) | Request a copy
[img]
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
Related URLs:
Depositing User: LivePure Connector
Date Deposited: 01 Dec 2020 00:54
Last Modified: 21 Jul 2021 01:39
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77845
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.002

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item