IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i5p602-613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-designing a Structured Expert Elicitation with Clinicians to Enhance Health Care Decision Making in Exercise Oncology

Author

Listed:
  • Yufan Wang

    (Centre for the Business and Economics of Health (CBEH), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

  • Alexandra L. McCarthy

    (Faculty of Health, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia)

  • Haitham Tuffaha

    (Centre for the Business and Economics of Health (CBEH), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Background While structured expert elicitation (SEE) is gaining traction in health technology assessment in situations in which data are scarce, its application in practice remains limited. Co-designing a practical and fit-for-purpose SEE with experts could enhance its acceptability and feasibility in clinical research. Objectives An SEE was co-designed with clinicians to elicit expert opinions on 3 uncertain quantities of interest (QoIs) for a decision-analytic model in exercise oncology. Methods A series of co-design meetings was convened to design 6 elicitation stages. Individual elicitation was conducted using the variable interval method (VIM), via videoconferencing. Linear pooling was adopted to generate group estimates. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the elicitation exercise to gather the experts’ first-hand experience of the elicitation process and to identify areas for improvement. Qualitative data were transcribed and content analyzed. Results Twelve experts participated in the co-designed SEE. Three beta distributions were derived and estimated from the experts’ responses: the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular events of exercise for women who survived early-stage endometrial cancer (Mean: 0.362, SD: 0.15), the probability that a clinician would refer a patient to the exercise program (Mean: 0.457, SD: 0.218), and the probability that a cancer patient would use such a health service upon referral (Mean: 0.446, SD: 0.203). Most of the experts’ first-hand experience of the co-designed SEE was positive. The qualitative feedback highlighted critical aspects of the elicitation process that should be designed and executed with caution when targeting clinicians with no prior experience of SEE. Conclusions This is the first expert elicitation conducted in exercise oncology. Engaging diverse stakeholders through co-design meetings and incorporating qualitative feedback proved effective and practical in introducing expert elicitation into clinical research. Highlights Recent SEE guidelines aim to facilitate the conduct of expert elicitation in model-based economic evaluation, but its application in practice remains limited. Engaging experts in the design of SEE could enhance its acceptability and feasibility in clinical research. This is the first co-designed expert elicitation involving clinicians in the field of exercise oncology. This practical approach to conducting SEE could promote a wider adoption to inform health care policy decisions when the evidence is lacking or uncertain.

Suggested Citation

  • Yufan Wang & Alexandra L. McCarthy & Haitham Tuffaha, 2025. "Co-designing a Structured Expert Elicitation with Clinicians to Enhance Health Care Decision Making in Exercise Oncology," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(5), pages 602-613, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:5:p:602-613
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251332967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251332967
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251332967?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
    ---><---

    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:45:y:2025:i:5:p:602-613. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.