OP141 Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Health Technology Assessment: Our Experience Using the Sheffield Elicitation Framework

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1017/s0266462323001423
Danielle Stringer, Ning Ma, David Tivey
{"title":"OP141 Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Health Technology Assessment: Our Experience Using the Sheffield Elicitation Framework","authors":"Danielle Stringer, Ning Ma, David Tivey","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323001423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionExpert judgement has an important role in health technology assessment (HTA), including as a source of evidence to inform economic modeling when published data are lacking. Quantitative information may be elicited from experts to inform model inputs and associated uncertainty using one of many expert elicitation methodologies. Here, the feasibility and potential benefits of one expert elicitation method, the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF), to the HTA process is examined.MethodsThe SHELF method seeks to express the knowledge of multiple experts in the form of a subjective probability distribution. Eliciting a subjective probability distribution allows the uncertainty of experts to be included in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of HTAs. The individual knowledge of participating experts is combined through behavioral aggregation, where experts participate in a discussion before being asked to provide judgments from the perspective of a rational impartial observer. The whole process is led by a facilitator who ensures all participants contribute and confirm that the final distribution is a product of consensus, not compromise.ResultsWe recently conducted two SHELF elicitations as part of an ongoing project aiming to streamline the assessment of positron emission tomography (PET) in Australia. These elicitations provided insight into the usefulness of SHELF within the HTA setting. Given the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the elicitation sessions were conducted online rather than in the ideal face-to-face manner. In collaboration with one of the developers, we successfully adapted the method by making use of video conferencing technology to provide an online environment that mimicked the face-to-face setup as much as possible.ConclusionsSHELF provides a rigorous and scientific method by which to elicit the knowledge of multiple experts in the form of a probability distribution. However, the method is resource intensive and may be best reserved for when data on key drivers are lacking.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323001423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionExpert judgement has an important role in health technology assessment (HTA), including as a source of evidence to inform economic modeling when published data are lacking. Quantitative information may be elicited from experts to inform model inputs and associated uncertainty using one of many expert elicitation methodologies. Here, the feasibility and potential benefits of one expert elicitation method, the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF), to the HTA process is examined.MethodsThe SHELF method seeks to express the knowledge of multiple experts in the form of a subjective probability distribution. Eliciting a subjective probability distribution allows the uncertainty of experts to be included in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of HTAs. The individual knowledge of participating experts is combined through behavioral aggregation, where experts participate in a discussion before being asked to provide judgments from the perspective of a rational impartial observer. The whole process is led by a facilitator who ensures all participants contribute and confirm that the final distribution is a product of consensus, not compromise.ResultsWe recently conducted two SHELF elicitations as part of an ongoing project aiming to streamline the assessment of positron emission tomography (PET) in Australia. These elicitations provided insight into the usefulness of SHELF within the HTA setting. Given the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the elicitation sessions were conducted online rather than in the ideal face-to-face manner. In collaboration with one of the developers, we successfully adapted the method by making use of video conferencing technology to provide an online environment that mimicked the face-to-face setup as much as possible.ConclusionsSHELF provides a rigorous and scientific method by which to elicit the knowledge of multiple experts in the form of a probability distribution. However, the method is resource intensive and may be best reserved for when data on key drivers are lacking.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
OP141 卫生技术评估中的专家知识征询:我们使用谢菲尔德诱导框架的经验
导言专家判断在卫生技术评估 (HTA) 中发挥着重要作用,包括在缺乏公开数据的情况下作为经济建模的证据来源。可通过多种专家征询方法之一从专家处征询定量信息,为模型输入和相关不确定性提供依据。在此,我们将对一种专家征询方法--谢菲尔德征询框架(SHELF)--在 HTA 流程中的可行性和潜在益处进行研究。方法 SHELF 方法旨在以主观概率分布的形式表达多位专家的知识。采用主观概率分布可以将专家的不确定性纳入概率敏感性分析中,而概率敏感性分析正日益成为 HTA 的一个显著特征。参与专家的个人知识通过行为聚合结合在一起,在此过程中,专家先参与讨论,然后被要求从理性公正的观察者的角度提供判断。整个过程由主持人引导,确保所有参与者都能做出贡献,并确认最终的分配是共识的产物,而不是妥协的结果。结果我们最近进行了两次 SHELF 征询,作为正在进行的旨在简化澳大利亚正电子发射断层扫描(PET)评估的项目的一部分。这些征求意见活动让我们深入了解了 SHELF 在 HTA 环境中的实用性。考虑到 COVID-19 大流行所带来的限制,征询会议是在网上进行的,而不是理想的面对面方式。通过与其中一位开发人员合作,我们利用视频会议技术成功地调整了该方法,提供了一个尽可能模拟面对面设置的在线环境。然而,该方法需要大量资源,最好在缺乏关键驱动因素数据时使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1