Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Use of expert knowledge in evaluating costs and benefits of alternative service provisions: A case study

  • Paul H. Garthwaite (a1), James B. Chilcott (a2), David J. Jenkinson (a3) and Paul Tappenden (a2)
Abstract

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.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.KS Berbaum , DD Dorfman , EA Jr Franken , RT Caldwell . An empirical comparison of discrete ratings and subjective probability ratings. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:756763.

2.F Christiansen , T Nilsson , K Mare , A Carlson . Adding a visual linear scale probability to the PIOPED probability of pulmonary embolism. Acta Radiol. 1997;38:458463.

7.HD Sostman , RE Coleman , DM DeLong , GE Newman , S Paine . Evaluation of revised criteria for ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Radiology. 1994;193:103107.

8.SB Tan , YF Chung , BC Tai , YB Cheung , D Machin . Elicitation of prior distributions for a phase III randomized controlled trial of adjuvant therapy with surgery for heptatocellular carcinoma. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:110121.

10.LC Van Der Gaag , S Renooij , CL Witteman , BM Aleman , BG Taal . Probabilities for a probabilistic network: A case study in oesophageal cancer. Artif Intell Med. 2002;25:123148.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: