ArticlePharmacoEconomics2007
A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of surgical interventions in patients with severe pressure ulcers: the SIPS mixed-methods exploratory study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017Pooled it
- Pregnant women's and policymakers' preferences for the expansion of noninvasive prenatal screening: A discrete choice experiment approach study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Public and decision-maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions in Iran: an application of the discrete choice experiment.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Attributes Development for Pharmaceutical Subsidization: A Qualitative Study.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2020Article
- What Can We Expect from Value-Based Funding of Medicines? A Retrospective Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.PloS one · 2014Article
- Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2013Article
- Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Article
- Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2010Article
- Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.BMC health services research · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) takes account of concerns other than just incremental cost effectiveness in commissioning healthcare services.
methodA stated preference binary choice experiment was used to explore the preferences of members of NICE's Appraisal Committees for incremental cost effectiveness, the degree of uncertainty surrounding incremental costs and health outcomes, the age of beneficiaries, baseline health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and the availability of alternative therapies when considering whether to recommend health technologies.
resultsA logit modelling analysis of Committee members' stated preferences suggested that increases in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and economic uncertainty, and the availability of other therapies was associated with statistically significant reductions in the odds of a positive recommendation (p < 0.01). The transition from a very low to a comparatively high level of baseline HR-QOL was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of a positive recommendation (p = 0.003). The age of beneficiaries did not significantly affect decisions concerning whether to recommend technologies.
conclusionThe results of the choice experiment support the notion of a probabilistic adoption/rejection approach rather than the operation of a single cost-effectiveness threshold.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17640110What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.