ArticleBMC public health2024
Cross-model validation of public health microsimulation models; comparing two models on estimated effects of a weight management intervention.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth economic modelling indicates that referral to a behavioural weight management programme is cost saving and generates QALY gains compared with a brief intervention. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-model validation comparing outcomes from this cost-effectiveness analysis to those of a comparator model, to understand how differences in model structure contribute to outcomes.
methodsThe outcomes produced by two models, the School for Public Health Research diabetes prevention (SPHR) and Health Checks (HC) models, were compared for three weight-management programme strategies; Weight Watchers (WW) for 12 weeks, WW for 52 weeks, and a brief intervention, and a simulated no intervention scenario. Model inputs were standardised, and iterative adjustments were made to each model to identify drivers of differences in key outcomes.
resultsThe total QALYs estimated by the HC model were higher in all treatment groups than those estimated by the SPHR model, and there was a large difference in incremental QALYs between the models. SPHR simulated greater QALY gains for 12-week WW and 52-week WW relative to the Brief Intervention. Comparisons across socioeconomic groups found a stronger socioeconomic gradient in the SPHR model. Removing the impact of treatment on HbA1c from the SPHR model, running both models only with the conditions that the models have in common and, to a lesser extent, changing the data used to estimate risk factor trajectories, resulted in more consistent model outcomes.
conclusionsThe key driver of difference between the models was the inclusion of extra evidence-based detail in SPHR on the impacts of treatments on HbA1c. The conclusions were less sensitive to the dataset used to inform the risk factor trajectories. These findings strengthen the original cost-effectiveness analyses of the weight management interventions and provide an increased understanding of what is structurally important in the models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.