Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey

  • Joanna Thorn
  • , Charlotte F. Davies
  • , Sara Brookes
  • , Sian Noble
  • , Melina Dritsaki
  • , Ewan Gray
  • , Dyfrig Hughes
  • , Borislava Mihaylova
  • , Stavros Petrou
  • , Colin Ridyard
  • , Tracey Sach
  • , Edward Wilson
  • , Sarah Wordsworth
  • , William Hollingworth
    • University of Bristol
    • University of Oxford
    • University of Edinburgh
    • University of East Anglia

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    125 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.

    METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.

    RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.

    CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)539-547
    Number of pages9
    JournalValue in Health
    Volume24
    Issue number4
    Early online date28 Nov 2020
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2021

    Keywords

    • analysis plans
    • bias
    • economic evaluation

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this