Search

Objectives: A treatment pathway model was developed to examine the costs and benefits of the current bowel cancer service in England and to evaluate potential alternatives in service provision. To use the pathway model, various parameters and probability distributions had to be specified. They could not all be determined from empirical evidence and, instead, expert opinion was elicited in the form of statistical quantities that gave the required information. The purpose of this study is to describe the procedures used to quantify expert opinion and note examples of good practice contained in the case study. Methods: The required information was identified and preparatory discussion with four experts refined the questions they would be asked. In individual elicitation sessions they quantified their opinions, mainly in the form of point and interval estimates for specified variables. New methods have been developed for quantifying expert opinion and these were implemented in specialized software that uses interactive graphics. This software was used to elicit opinion about quantities related to measurable covariates. Results: Assessments for thirty-four quantities were elicited and available checks supported their validity. Eight points of good practice in eliciting and using expert judgment were evident. Parameters and probability distributions needed for the pathway model were determined from the elicited assessments. Simulation results from the pathway model were used to inform policy on bowel cancer service provision. Conclusions: The study illustrates that quantifying and using expert judgment can be acceptable in real problems of practical importance. For full benefit to be gained from expert knowledge, elicitation must be conducted carefully and should be reported in detail.

About this Executive Summary This comprehensive executive summary reports on a case study designed to demonstrate the application of a number of the key concepts and methods developed in the INTEGRATE-HTA project to the assessment of complex technologies. The case study focuses on models of home based palliative care with and without an additional element of caregiver support, known as reinforced and non-reinforced home based palliative care respectively. What is already known about the topic With changing disease patterns in Europe, increasingly complex health care technologies, such as palliative care, have gained importance. Current HTA methods rarely take account of wider legal, ethical and socio-cultural issues or context and implementation and are not adequately equipped to assess highly complex technologies, despite considerable progress in recent years. As a result, HTA is rarely applied to highly complex health technologies. What this case study report adds The INTEGRATE-HTA project developed concepts and methods for the assessment of complex technologies, taking into account legal, ethical and socio-cultural issues as well as context and implementation. This case study is designed to demonstrate the application of a number of the key concepts and methods developed in the INTEGRATE-HTA project to home based palliative care, with and without an additional element of caregiver support, as an example of a complex technology; known as “reinforced” and “non-reinforced” home based palliative care respectively. The INTEGRATE-HTA model, developed to enable integration of relevant assessment aspects, is used to structure this report. The case study reports on the application of some of the concepts and methods developed within the INTEGRATE-HTA project to the assessment of effectiveness as well as economic, sociocultural, ethical, and legal aspects; patient preferences and patient-specific moderators of treatment and context and implementation issues related to rein

Background: Stakeholders are people with an interest in a topic. Internationally, stakeholder involvement in palliative care research and Health Technology Assessment requires -development Stakeholder involvement adds value throughout research (from prioritizing topics to disseminating findings). Philosophies and understandings about the best ways to involve stakeholders in research differ internationally. Stakeholder involvement took place in seven countries (England, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway and Poland). Findings informed a project that developed concepts and methods for HTA and applied these to evaluate models of palliative care service delivery. Aims: To report on stakeholder involvement in the INTEGRATE-HTA project and how issues identified informed project development. Design: Using stakeholder consultation or a qualitative research design, as appropriate locally, stakeholders in seven countries acted as ‘advisors’ to aid researchers’ decision making. Thematic analysis was used to identify key issues across countries. Setting/participants: 132 stakeholders (82 professionals and 50 ‘lay’ people) aged ≥18 participated in individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, consultation meetings or focus groups. Results: Different stakeholder involvement methods were used successfully to identify key issues in palliative care. Twenty-three issues common to three or more countries informed decisions about the intervention and comparator of interest; sub questions and specific assessments within the HTA. Conclusions: Stakeholders, including patients and families undergoing palliative care, can inform project decision making using various involvement methods according to the local context. Researchers should consider local understandings about stakeholder involvement as views of appropriate and feasible methods vary. Methods for stakeholder involvement, especially consultation, need further development.

Objectives: A treatment pathway model was developed to examine the costs and benefits of the current bowel cancer service in England and to evaluate potential alternatives in service provision. To use the pathway model, various parameters and probability distributions had to be specified. They could not all be determined from empirical evidence and, instead, expert opinion was elicited in the form of statistical quantities that gave the required information. The purpose of this study is to describe the procedures used to quantify expert opinion and note examples of good practice contained in the case study. Methods: The required information was identified and preparatory discussion with four experts refined the questions they would be asked. In individual elicitation sessions they quantified their opinions, mainly in the form of point and interval estimates for specified variables. New methods have been developed for quantifying expert opinion and these were implemented in specialized software that uses interactive graphics. This software was used to elicit opinion about quantities related to measurable covariates. Results: Assessments for thirty-four quantities were elicited and available checks supported their validity. Eight points of good practice in eliciting and using expert judgment were evident. Parameters and probability distributions needed for the pathway model were determined from the elicited assessments. Simulation results from the pathway model were used to inform policy on bowel cancer service provision. Conclusions: The study illustrates that quantifying and using expert judgment can be acceptable in real problems of practical importance. For full benefit to be gained from expert knowledge, elicitation must be conducted carefully and should be reported in detail.