IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i10p837-848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Karnon

Abstract

Markov models have traditionally been used to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of competing health care technologies that require the description of patient pathways over extended time horizons. Discrete event simulation (DES) is a more flexible, but more complicated decision modelling technique, that can also be used to model extended time horizons. Through the application of a Markov process and a DES model to an economic evaluation comparing alternative adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, this paper compares the respective processes and outputs of these alternative modelling techniques. DES displays increased flexibility in two broad areas, though the outputs from the two modelling techniques were similar. These results indicate that the use of DES may be beneficial only when the available data demonstrates particular characteristics. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:10:p:837-848
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.770
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.770?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. Joanne Lord & Maxwell A. Asante, 1999. "Estimating uncertainty ranges for costs by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 323-333, June.
    2. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 263-268, May.
    3. Elizabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs, 2000. "Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessent: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling," Working Papers 179chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261, May.
    5. David J. Pasta & Jennifer L. Taylor & James M. Henning, 1999. "Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Incorporating the Bootstrap," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 353-363, August.
    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. 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.
    2. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    3. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 2004. "Javelin Diagrams: A Graphical Tool for Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 93-107, June.
    4. Doug Coyle & Jeremy Oakley, 2008. "Estimating the expected value of partial perfect information: a review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 251-259, August.
    5. David J. Vanness & W. Ray Kim, 2002. "Bayesian estimation, simulation and uncertainty analysis: the cost‐effectiveness of ganciclovir prophylaxis in liver transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 551-566, September.
    6. A. E. Ades & A. J. Sutton, 2006. "Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision‐making: current approaches," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 5-35, January.
    7. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    8. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    9. F. J. Vázquez‐Polo & M. A. Negrín Hernández & B. González López‐Valcárcel, 2005. "Using covariates to reduce uncertainty in the economic evaluation of clinical trial data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 545-557, June.
    10. Douglas Coyle, 2003. "Determining the optimal combinations of mutually exclusive interventions: a response to Hutubessy and colleagues," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 159-162, February.
    11. Nicky Welton & A. E. Ades, 2012. "Research Decisions In The Face Of Heterogeneity: What Can A New Study Tell Us?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(10), pages 1196-1200, October.
    12. Pedram Sendi & Huldrych F Günthard & Mathew Simcock & Bruno Ledergerber & Jörg Schüpbach & Manuel Battegay & for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, 2007. "Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    15. Nadine Schur & Salvatore Brugaletta & Angel Cequier & Andrés Iñiguez & Antonio Serra & Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo & Vicente Mainar & Gianluca Campo & Maurizio Tespili & Peter den Heijer & Armando Bethencou, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2003. "Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 33-49, January.
    17. Eric Jutkowitz & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Hyon K. Choi & Karen M. Kuntz & Hawre Jalal, 2017. "Prioritizing Future Research on Allopurinol and Febuxostat for the Management of Gout: Value of Information Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 1073-1085, October.
    18. K. Claxton & P. J. Neumannn & S. S. Araki & M. C. Weinstein, "undated". "Bayesian Value-of-Information Analysis: An Application to a Policy Model of Alzheimer's Disease," Discussion Papers 00/39, Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. Hidetoshi Shibahara & Takeru Shiroiwa & Megumi Ishiguro & Masato Nakamura & Junichi Hasegawa & Shigeki Yamaguchi & Yuriko Masuda & Junichi Sakamoto & Naohiro Tomita & Takashi Fukuda, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness of 12 months of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the JFMC37-0801 study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1159-1171, September.
    20. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:10:p:837-848. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.