Skip to main content
Top

12-04-2024 | Original Research Article

Barriers and Facilitators of Using R for Decision Analytic Modeling in Health Technology Assessment: Focus Group Results

Authors: Yanara Marks, Jeffrey S. Hoch, Anna Heath, Petros Pechlivanoglou

Published in: PharmacoEconomics

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and Objective

Decision models for health technology assessment (HTA) are largely submitted to HTA agencies using commercial software, which has known limitations. The use of the open-source programming language R has been suggested because of its efficiency, transparency, reproducibility, and ability to consider complex analyses. However, its use in HTA remains limited. This qualitative study aimed to explore the main reasons for this slow uptake of R in HTA and identify tangible facilitators.

Methods

We undertook two semi-structured focus group discussions with 24 key stakeholders from government agencies, consultancy, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. Two 1.5-hour discussions reflected on barriers identified in a previous study and highlighted additional barriers. Discussions were recorded and semi-transcribed, and data were organized and summarized into key themes.

Results

Human resources constraints were identified as a key barrier, including a lack of training, prioritization and collaboration, and resistance to change. Another key barrier was the lack of acceptance, or clear guidance, around submissions in R by HTA agencies. Participants also highlighted a lack of communication around accepted packages and decision model structures, and between HTA agencies on standard decision modeling structures.

Conclusions

There is a need for standardization, which can facilitate decision model sharing, coding homogeneity, and improved country adaptations. The creation of training materials and tailored workshops was identified as a key short-term facilitator. Increased communication and engagement of stakeholders could also facilitate the use of R by identifying needs and opportunities, encouraging HTA agencies to address structural barriers, and increasing incentives to use R.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi); 2006. Health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://www.htaglossary.net [Accessed 27 Jun 2023]. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi); 2006. Health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://​www.​htaglossary.​net [Accessed 27 Jun 2023].
5.
go back to reference Kunst N, Jackson C, Heath A. Chapter 1. Health economic modelling. In: Value of information for health economic evaluations. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2023. p. 1–371. Kunst N, Jackson C, Heath A. Chapter 1. Health economic modelling. In: Value of information for health economic evaluations. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2023. p. 1–371.
6.
go back to reference Briggs A, Schulpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2006. p. 1–256.CrossRef Briggs A, Schulpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2006. p. 1–256.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Pechlivanoglou P, Enns E, Alarid-Escudero F, Krijkamp E, Jalal H, Yang A, et al. Decision Analysis in R for Technologies in Health (DARTH) Group; 2023. Learn with us. Upcoming workshops and short courses. http://darthworkgroup.com/workshops/ [Accessed 17 Sep 2023]. Pechlivanoglou P, Enns E, Alarid-Escudero F, Krijkamp E, Jalal H, Yang A, et al. Decision Analysis in R for Technologies in Health (DARTH) Group; 2023. Learn with us. Upcoming workshops and short courses. http://​darthworkgroup.​com/​workshops/​ [Accessed 17 Sep 2023].
26.
go back to reference Bouma GD, Ling R, Wilkinson L. The research process. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 1–304. Bouma GD, Ling R, Wilkinson L. The research process. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 1–304.
28.
go back to reference Coleman P. In-depth interviewing as a research method in healthcare practice and education: value, limitations and considerations. Int J Caring Sci. 2019;12(3):1879. Coleman P. In-depth interviewing as a research method in healthcare practice and education: value, limitations and considerations. Int J Caring Sci. 2019;12(3):1879.
31.
go back to reference Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd, SAGE Research Methods Foundations; 2019. Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd, SAGE Research Methods Foundations; 2019.
33.
go back to reference Naylor NR, Williams J, Green N, Lamrock F, Briggs A. Extensions of health economic evaluations in R for Microsoft Excel users: a tutorial for incorporating heterogeneity and conducting value of information analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(1):21–32.CrossRefPubMed Naylor NR, Williams J, Green N, Lamrock F, Briggs A. Extensions of health economic evaluations in R for Microsoft Excel users: a tutorial for incorporating heterogeneity and conducting value of information analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(1):21–32.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Barriers and Facilitators of Using R for Decision Analytic Modeling in Health Technology Assessment: Focus Group Results
Authors
Yanara Marks
Jeffrey S. Hoch
Anna Heath
Petros Pechlivanoglou
Publication date
12-04-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01374-y