Comparison of elicitation approaches in early stage HTA applied on artificial thymus for patients with DiGeorge syndrome

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68407700%3A21460%2F23%3A00367132" target="_blank" >RIV/68407700:21460/23:00367132 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11223002" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11223002</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11223002" target="_blank" >10.3390/healthcare11223002</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of elicitation approaches in early stage HTA applied on artificial thymus for patients with DiGeorge syndrome

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objective: This paper focuses on research in expert elicitation as a part of the early stage health technology assessment (eHTA). The current state of affairs is analysed and two elicitation approaches are compared: the four fixed intervals method and the histogram method, as applied to an example of early assessment of clinical effectiveness of artificial thymus for patients with the DiGeorge syndrome. Methods: A survey was carried out consisting of four questions concerning the topic with the aim to apply the elicitation methods. Eight experts answered the questions using both elicitation methods. Based on their answers, the methods were compared visually and by means of statistical tests. In order to compare the perception of the two elicitation methods, the survey also included questions regarding the experts’ subjective preferences. Results: The results of the comparison of the two elicitation approaches did not clearly decide which method is more beneficial and better; however, it is possible to indicate which of the two methods suits better for different types of experts. Conclusions: Before selecting an elicitation method as a part of eHTA, it is advisable to effectively consider the technology to be assessed and the type of experts to be invited to give their opinion.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of elicitation approaches in early stage HTA applied on artificial thymus for patients with DiGeorge syndrome

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objective: This paper focuses on research in expert elicitation as a part of the early stage health technology assessment (eHTA). The current state of affairs is analysed and two elicitation approaches are compared: the four fixed intervals method and the histogram method, as applied to an example of early assessment of clinical effectiveness of artificial thymus for patients with the DiGeorge syndrome. Methods: A survey was carried out consisting of four questions concerning the topic with the aim to apply the elicitation methods. Eight experts answered the questions using both elicitation methods. Based on their answers, the methods were compared visually and by means of statistical tests. In order to compare the perception of the two elicitation methods, the survey also included questions regarding the experts’ subjective preferences. Results: The results of the comparison of the two elicitation approaches did not clearly decide which method is more beneficial and better; however, it is possible to indicate which of the two methods suits better for different types of experts. Conclusions: Before selecting an elicitation method as a part of eHTA, it is advisable to effectively consider the technology to be assessed and the type of experts to be invited to give their opinion.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20601 - Medical engineering

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Healthcare

ISSN

2227-9032

e-ISSN

2227-9032

Svazek periodika

11

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

22

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

11

Strana od-do

1-11

Kód UT WoS článku

001118435400001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85177684287