Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 12, Number 1 > Pp. 11-17G

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, H. Articles by Thompson, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

The credibility of health economic models for health policy decision-making: the case of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Helen Campbell, Andrew Briggs, Martin Buxton, Lois Kim, Simon Thompson

Health Economics Research Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, UK; Health Economics Research Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, UK; Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK; MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK; MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Objectives: To review health economic models of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among elderly males and assess their credibility for informing decision-making.

Methods: A literature review identified health economic models of ultrasound screening for AAA. For each model focussing on population screening in elderly males, model structure and input parameter values were critically appraised using published good practice guidelines for decision analytic models.

Results: Twelve models published between 1989 and 2003 were identified. Converting costs to a common currency and base year, substantial variability in cost-effectiveness results were revealed. Appraisals carried out for the nine models focusing on population screening showed differences in their complexity, with the simpler models generating results most favourable to screening. Eight of the nine models incorporated two or more simplifying structural assumptions favouring screening; uncertainty surrounding these assumptions was not investigated by any model. Quality assessments on a small number of parameters revealed input values varied between models, methods used to identify and incorporate input data were often not described, and few sensitivity analyses were reported.

Conclusions: Large variation exists in the cost-effectiveness results generated by AAA screening models. The substantial number of factors potentially contributing to such disparities means that reconciliation of model results is impossible. In addition, poor reporting of methods makes it difficult to identify the most plausible and thus most useful model of those developed.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Ehlers, K. Overvad, J. Sorensen, S. Christensen, M. Bech, and M. Kjolby Analysis of cost effectiveness of screening Danish men aged 65 for abdominal aortic aneurysm BMJ, June 24, 2009; 338(jun24_2): b2243 - b2243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S G Thompson, H A Ashton, L Gao, R A P Scott, and on behalf of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening St Screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm: 10 year mortality and cost effectiveness results from the randomised Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study BMJ, June 24, 2009; 338(jun24_2): b2307 - b2307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]