Decision makers often desire both guidance on the most cost-effective interventions given current knowledge and also the value of collecting additional information to improve the decisions made (i.e., from value of information [VOI] analysis). Unfortunately, VOI analysis remains underused due to the conceptual, mathematical, and computational challenges of implementing Bayesian decision-theoretic approaches in models of sufficient complexity for real-world decision making. In this study, we propose a novel practical approach for conducting VOI analysis using a combination of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, linear regression metamodeling, and unit normal loss integral function—a parametric approach to VOI analysis. We adopt a linear approximation and leverage a fundamental assumption of VOI analysis, which requires that all sources of prior uncertainties be accurately specified. We provide examples of the approach and show that the assumptions we make do not induce substantial bias but greatly reduce the computational time needed to perform VOI analysis. Our approach avoids the need to analytically solve or approximate joint Bayesian updating, requires only one set of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and can be applied in models with correlated input parameters.
FelliJHazenG. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):95–109.
2.
FelliJHazenG. A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1999;268(3):263–8.
3.
KoerkampBHuninkMStijnenTWeinsteinMC. Identifying key parameters in cost-effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):383–92.
4.
ClaxtonKPosnettJ. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996;5(6):513–24.
5.
CoyleDGrunfeldEWellsG. The assessment of the economic return from controlled clinical trials: a framework applied to clinical trials of colorectal cancer follow-up. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(1):6–11.
6.
HallPSMcCabeCBrownJMCameronDA. Health economics in drug development: efficient research to inform healthcare funding decisions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(15):2674–80.
7.
BriggsASculpherMClaxtonK. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
8.
ClaxtonK. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.
9.
KentSBriggsAEckermannSBerryC. Are value of information methods ready for prime time? An application to alternative treatment strategies for NSTEMI patients. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):435–42.
10.
KoerkampBGSpronkSStijnenTHuninkMGM. Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication. Value Health. 2010;13(2):242–50.
11.
HenrikssonMLundgrenFCarlssonP. Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources—the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden. Health Econ. 2006;1322(12):1311–22.
12.
BojkeLClaxtonKSculpherMJPalmerS. Identifying research priorities: the value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(1):33–43.
13.
PhilipsZClaxtonKPalmerS. Priority setting for research in health care: an application of value of information analysis to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):379–87.
14.
WeltonNAdesA. Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case-study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening. J R Stat Soc. 2008;171(4):807–41.
15.
WillanAREckermannS. Value of information and pricing new healthcare interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(6):447–59.
16.
EckermannSWillanARA. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):195–209.
17.
ClaxtonKPSculpherMJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.
18.
HoomansTFenwickELPalmerSClaxtonK. Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):315–24.
19.
SpiegelhalterDMylesJ. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2000;4(38):1–130.
20.
ChilcottJBrennanABoothAKarnonJTappendenP. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2003;7(23):1–138.
21.
ClaxtonKCohenJTNeumannPJ. When is evidence sufficient?Health Aff. 2005;24(1):93–101.
22.
ClaxtonKLaceyLFLWalkerSGS. Selecting treatments: a decision theoretic approach. J R Stat Soc. 2000;163(2):211–225.
23.
ClaxtonKSculpherMDrummondM. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711–715.
24.
FenwickEPalmerSClaxtonKSculpherMAbramsKSuttonA. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(5):480–496.
25.
KoerkampBBGNikkenJJOeiEHEStijnenTGinaiAZHuninkMGM. Value of information analysis used to determine the necessity of additional research: MR imaging in acute knee trauma as an example. Radiology. 2008;246(2):420–5.
26.
AdesALuGClaxtonK. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(2):207–27.
27.
MyersESandersGDRaviD. Evaluating the Potential Use of Modeling and Value-of-Information Analysis for Future Research Prioritization Within the Evidence-based Practice Center Program. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC030-EF.
28.
MyersEMcBroomAShenLPoseyRGrayM. Value-of-Information Analysis for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Prioritization. Washington, DC: Duke Evidence-based Practice Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; 2012.
29.
SteutenLvandeWeteringGGroothuis-OudshoornKRetèlV. A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(1):25–48.
30.
BrennanAKharroubiSAChilcottJO’HaganA. A two level Monte Carlo approach to calculation expected value of sample information: how to value a research design. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2002 Oct 23; Baltimore, MD.
31.
WeltonNJMadanJJCaldwellDMPetersTJAdesAE. Expected value of sample information for multi-arm cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(3):352–65.
32.
BrennanAKharroubiS. Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data. Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1205–25.
33.
BrennanAKharroubiS a. Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):122–48.
34.
StrongMOakleyJBrennanA. An efficient method for computing the expected value of sample information: a non-parametric regression approach. http://sheffield.ac.uk
35.
RaiffaHSchlaiferR. Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.
36.
RaiffaH. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley;1968.
37.
SchlaiferR. Introduction to Statistics for Business Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1961.
38.
ClaxtonKSculpherM. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.
39.
WillanARPintoEM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005;24(12):1791–806.
40.
CoyleDOakleyJ. Estimating the expected value of partial perfect information: a review of methods. Eur J Heal Econ. 2008;9(3):251–9.
41.
JalalHDowdBSainfortFKuntzKM. Linear regression metamodeling as a tool to summarize and present simulation model results. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(7):880–90.
42.
HeitjanDF. Fieller’s method and net health benefits. Health Econ. 2000;9(4):327–35.
43.
LaskaEMMeisnerMSiegelCWanderlingJ. Statistical cost-effectiveness analysis of two treatments based on net health benefits. Stat Med. 2001;20(8):1279–302.
44.
StinnettAMullahyJ. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(2, Suppl.):S68–80.
45.
BriggsAWeinsteinMCFenwickELKarnonJSculpherMJPaltielD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):722–32.
46.
DoubiletPBeggCBWeinsteinMC. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Mak. 1985;5(2):157.
47.
MoritaSThallPFMüllerP. Determining the effective sample size of a parametric prior. Biometrics. 2008;64(2):595–602.
48.
KleijnenJPC. Design and Analysis of Simulation Experiments. New York: Springer; 2007.
49.
AdesAClaxtonKSculpherM. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):373–81.
50.
JalalHKuntzKM. Building correlations among model parameters: a practical approach. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2013 Oct 22; Baltimore, MD.
51.
LauJIoannidisJPSchmidCH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.
52.
DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.
53.
ThompsonSGSmithTCSharpSJ. Investigating underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997;16(23):2741–58.
54.
ThompsonSGSharpSJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.
55.
ThompsonSG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. Br Med J. 1994;309(6965):1351–5.
56.
AdesAE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med. 2003;22(19):2995–3016.
57.
WillanAREckermannS. Accounting for between-study variation in incremental net benefit in value of information. Health Econ. 2012;21(10):1183–95.
58.
TappendenPEggingtonSOakleyJMccabeC. Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2004;8(27):1–78.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
