IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v30y2012i3p171-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Ethgen
  • Baudouin Standaert

Abstract

While no single type of model can provide adequate answers under all circumstances, any modelling endeavour should incorporate three fundamental considerations in any decision-making question: the target population, the disease and the intervention characteristics. A target population is likely to be characterized by various types of heterogeneity and a dynamic evolution over time. It is therefore important to adequately capture these population effects on the results of a model. There are essentially two different approaches in modelling a population over time: a cohort-based approach and a population-based approach. In a cohort-based model, a closed group of individuals who have at least one specific characteristic or experience in common over a defined period of time is run through a state transition process. The cohort is generally composed of a hypothetical number of representative or ‘average’ individuals (i.e. the target population is considered to be a homogeneous group). The population-based approach projects the evolution of the estimated prevalent target population and intends to reflect as much as possible the demographic, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the prevalent target population relevant for the decision problem. A cohort-based approach is generally used in most published healthcare decision models. However, this choice is rarely discussed by modellers. In this article, we challenge this assumption. To address the underlying decision problem, we affirm it is crucial that modellers consider the characteristics of the target population. Then, they could opt for using the most appropriate approach. Decision makers should also understand the impact on the results of both types of models in order to make informed healthcare decisions. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:171-181
    DOI: 10.2165/11593050-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11593050-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11593050-000000000-00000?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen M. Kuntz & Sue J. Goldie, 2002. "Assessing the Sensitivity of Decision-Analytic Results to Unobserved Markers of Risk: Defining the Effects of Heterogeneity Bias," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(3), pages 218-227, June.
    2. Gregory S. Zaric, 2003. "The Impact of Ignoring Population Heterogeneity when Markov Models are Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(5), pages 379-386, September.
    3. Zoe Philips & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer, 2008. "The Half-Life of Truth: What Are Appropriate Time Horizons for Research Decisions?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 287-299, May.
    4. Sun-Young Kim & Sue Goldie, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 191-215, March.
    5. Sarah Dewilde & Rob Anderson, 2004. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 486-492, October.
    6. Davies, Ruth & Roderick, Paul & Raftery, James, 2003. "The evaluation of disease prevention and treatment using simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 53-66, October.
    7. Karen M. Kuntz & Elisabeth Fenwick & Andrew Briggs, 2010. "Appropriate Cohorts for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: To Mix or Not to Mix?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 424-425, July.
    8. Douglas Coyle & Martin J. Buxton & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2003. "Stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 421-427, May.
    9. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    10. Martin Hoyle & Rob Anderson, 2010. "Whose Costs and Benefits? Why Economic Evaluations Should Simulate Both Prevalent and All Future Incident Patient Cohorts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 426-437, July.
    11. K Cooper & S C Brailsford & R Davies, 2007. "Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(2), pages 168-176, February.
    12. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
    13. Martin Hoyle, 2011. "Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-15, January.
    14. Xin Sun & Thomas Faunce, 2008. "Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(4), pages 313-323, November.
    15. Jonathan Karnon, 2003. "Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 837-848, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Standaert, Baudouin & Schecroun, Nadia & Ethgen, Olivier & Topachevskyi, Oleksandr & Morioka, Yoriko & Van Vlaenderen, Ilse, 2017. "Optimising the introduction of multiple childhood vaccines in Japan: A model proposing the introduction sequence achieving the highest health gains," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1303-1312.

    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. Gregory S. Zaric, 2008. "Optimal drug pricing, limited use conditions and stratified net benefits for Markov models of disease progression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(11), pages 1277-1294, November.
    2. Gregory S. Zaric, 2008. "Optimal drug pricing, limited use conditions and stratified net benefits for Markov models of disease progression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(11), pages 1277-1294.
    3. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    6. Markus Kraus & Marion Rauner & Sigrun Schwarz, 2010. "Hospital management games: a taxonomy and extensive review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 18(4), pages 567-591, December.
    7. K Cooper & S C Brailsford & R Davies, 2007. "Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(2), pages 168-176, February.
    8. Anna K. Lugnér & Sido D. Mylius & Jacco Wallinga, 2010. "Dynamic versus static models in cost‐effectiveness analyses of anti‐viral drug therapy to mitigate an influenza pandemic," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 518-531, May.
    9. Joanne Lord & George Laking & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "Non‐linearity in the cost‐effectiveness frontier," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 565-577, June.
    10. Anthony O'Hagan & Matt Stevenson & Jason Madan, 2007. "Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1009-1023, October.
    11. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.
    12. Marion Rauner & Michaela Schaffhauser-Linzatti & Helmut Niessner, 2012. "Resource planning for ambulance services in mass casualty incidents: a DES-based policy model," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 254-269, September.
    13. John Graves & Shawn Garbett & Zilu Zhou & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Josh Peterson, 2021. "Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 453-464, May.
    14. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Douglas Mapel & Melissa Roberts, 2012. "New Clinical Insights into Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Their Implications for Pharmacoeconomic Analyses," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 869-885, October.
    16. Jesús Isaac Vázquez-Serrano & Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García & Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, 2021. "Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-20, November.
    17. Viana, J. & Brailsford, S.C. & Harindra, V. & Harper, P.R., 2014. "Combining discrete-event simulation and system dynamics in a healthcare setting: A composite model for Chlamydia infection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(1), pages 196-206.
    18. Ruth A. Lewis & Dyfrig Hughes & Alex J. Sutton & Clare Wilkinson, 2021. "Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 25-61, January.
    19. Marta Soares & Luísa Canto e Castro, 2012. "Continuous Time Simulation and Discretized Models for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1101-1117, December.
    20. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:171-181. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.