The use of exploratory analyses within the national institute for health and care excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis

KALTENTHALER, E., CARROLL, C., HILL-MCMANUS, D., SCOPE, Alison, HOLMES, M., RICE, S., ROSE, M., TAPPENDEN, P. and WOOLACOTT, N. (2016). The use of exploratory analyses within the national institute for health and care excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis. Health Technology Assessment, 20 (26), 1-48.

[img]
Preview
PDF
3003407.pdf - Published Version
All rights reserved.

Download (586kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta2026...
Link to published version:: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20260
Related URLs:

    Abstract

    Background: As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, independent Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise the company submission. During the critical appraisal process the ERG may undertake analyses to explore uncertainties around the company’s model and their implications for decision-making. The ERG reports are a central component of the evidence considered by the NICE Technology Appraisal Committees (ACs) in their deliberations. Objective: The aim of this research was to develop an understanding of the number and type of exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERGs within the STA process and to understand how these analyses are used by the NICE ACs in their decision-making. Methods: The 100 most recently completed STAs with published guidance were selected for inclusion in the analysis. The documents considered were ERG reports, clarification letters, the first appraisal consultation document and the final appraisal determination. Over 400 documents were assessed in this study. The categories of types of exploratory analyses included fixing errors, fixing violations, addressing matters of judgement and the ERG-preferred base case. A content analysis of documents (documentary analysis) was undertaken to identify and extract relevant data, and narrative synthesis was then used to rationalise and present these data. Results: The level and type of detail in ERG reports and clarification letters varied considerably. The vast majority (93%) of ERG reports reported one or more exploratory analyses. The most frequently reported type of analysis in these 93 ERG reports related to the category ‘matters of judgement’, which was reported in 83 (89%) reports. The category ‘ERG base-case/preferred analysis’ was reported in 45 (48%) reports, the category ‘fixing errors’ was reported in 33 (35%) reports and the category ‘fixing violations’ was reported in 17 (18%) reports. The exploratory analyses performed were the result of issues raised by an ERG in its critique of the submitted economic evidence. These analyses had more influence on recommendations earlier in the STA process than later on in the process. Limitations: The descriptions of analyses undertaken were often highly specific to a particular STA and could be inconsistent across ERG reports and thus difficult to interpret. Conclusions: Evidence Review Groups frequently conduct exploratory analyses to test or improve the economic evaluations submitted by companies as part of the STA process. ERG exploratory analyses often have an influence on the recommendations produced by the ACs. Future work: More in-depth analysis is needed to understand how ERGs make decisions regarding which exploratory analyses should be undertaken. More research is also needed to fully understand which types of exploratory analyses are most useful to ACs in their decision-making. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

    Item Type: Article
    Uncontrolled Keywords: Advisory Committees; Biomedical Research; Biomedical Technology; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Making; Humans; Organizational Objectives; State Medicine; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; United Kingdom; Humans; Decision Making; Biomedical Research; Biomedical Technology; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Advisory Committees; State Medicine; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Organizational Objectives; United Kingdom; Health Policy & Services; 0806 Information Systems; 0807 Library and Information Studies; 1117 Public Health and Health Services
    Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20260
    Page Range: 1-48
    SWORD Depositor: Symplectic Elements
    Depositing User: Symplectic Elements
    Date Deposited: 11 Feb 2022 15:10
    Last Modified: 11 Feb 2022 15:15
    URI: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29726

    Actions (login required)

    View Item View Item

    Downloads

    Downloads per month over past year

    View more statistics