IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i3p296-307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adjusting Estimates of the Expected Value of Information for Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Lazaros Andronis
  • Pelham M. Barton

Abstract

Background: Value of information (VoI) calculations give the expected benefits of decision making under perfect information (EVPI) or sample information (EVSI), typically on the premise that any treatment recommendations made in light of this information will be implemented instantly and fully. This assumption is unlikely to hold in health care; evidence shows that obtaining further information typically leads to “improved†rather than “perfect†implementation. Objectives: To present a method of calculating the expected value of further research that accounts for the reality of improved implementation. Methods: This work extends an existing conceptual framework by introducing additional states of the world regarding information (sample information, in addition to current and perfect information) and implementation (improved implementation, in addition to current and optimal implementation). The extension allows calculating the “implementation-adjusted†EVSI (IA-EVSI), a measure that accounts for different degrees of implementation. Calculations of implementation-adjusted estimates are illustrated under different scenarios through a stylized case study in non–small cell lung cancer. Results: In the particular case study, the population values for EVSI and IA-EVSI were £25 million and £8 million, respectively; thus, a decision assuming perfect implementation would have overestimated the expected value of research by about £17 million. IA-EVSI was driven by the assumed time horizon and, importantly, the specified rate of change in implementation: the higher the rate, the greater the IA-EVSI and the lower the difference between IA-EVSI and EVSI. Conclusions: Traditionally calculated measures of population VoI rely on unrealistic assumptions about implementation. This article provides a simple framework that accounts for improved, rather than perfect, implementation and offers more realistic estimates of the expected value of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazaros Andronis & Pelham M. Barton, 2016. "Adjusting Estimates of the Expected Value of Information for Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 296-307, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:3:p:296-307
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15614814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15614814
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15614814?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Davies, Linda M. & Ferris, Frederick L., 1992. "Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: The diabetic retinopathy study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 973-981, May.
    3. Townsend, Joy & Buxton, Martin, 1997. "Cost effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 181-194, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lazaros Andronis & Lucinda J. Billingham & Stirling Bryan & Nicholas D. James & Pelham M. Barton, 2016. "A Practical Application of Value of Information and Prospective Payback of Research to Prioritize Evaluative Research," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 321-334, April.
    2. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    3. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    4. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of ‘payback’ and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357, December.
    5. Karnon, Jonathan, 2002. "Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 329-347, September.
    6. Joanna Thorn & Joanna Coast & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Interpretation of the Expected Value of Perfect Information and Research Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 285-295, April.
    7. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    8. Arantzazu Arrospide & Oliver Ibarrondo & Iván Castilla & Igor Larrañaga & Javier Mar, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model to Evaluate the Cardiovascular Impact of Population Policies for Obesity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 241-254, February.
    9. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    10. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    11. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    12. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    13. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    14. Xinyue Dong & Xiaoning He & Jing Wu, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of the First‐in‐Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1187-1205, December.
    15. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    16. Jisoo A Kwon & Georgina M Chambers & Fabio Luciani & Lei Zhang & Shamin Kinathil & Dennis Kim & Hla-Hla Thein & Willings Botha & Sandra Thompson & Andrew Lloyd & Lorraine Yap & Richard T Gray & Tony B, 2021. "Hepatitis C treatment strategies in prisons: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    18. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman, 2021. "Early childhood education and life‐cycle health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 119-141, November.
    19. Stephen Morris & Kurinchi S Gurusamy & Jessica Sheringham & Brian R Davidson, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    20. Tushar Srivastava & Nicholas R. Latimer & Paul Tappenden, 2021. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 869-878, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:3:p:296-307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.