Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment

Authors: Bogdan Grigore, Jaime Peters, Christopher Hyde, Ken Stein

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs.

Methods

An Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses.
General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms.

Results

Fifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable.

Conclusions

EXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hadorn D, Kvizhinadze G, Collinson L, Blakely T. Use of expert knowledge elicitation to estimate parameters in health economic decision models. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(04):461–8.CrossRefPubMed Hadorn D, Kvizhinadze G, Collinson L, Blakely T. Use of expert knowledge elicitation to estimate parameters in health economic decision models. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(04):461–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.CrossRef O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hunger T, Schnell-Inderst P, Sahakyan N, Siebert U. Using expert opinion in health technology assessment: a guideline review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2016;32(3):131–139. Hunger T, Schnell-Inderst P, Sahakyan N, Siebert U. Using expert opinion in health technology assessment: a guideline review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2016;32(3):131–139.
4.
go back to reference Kliger D, Levy O. Mood impacts on probability weighting functions: “large-gamble” evidence. J Socio-Econ. 2008;37(4):1397–411.CrossRef Kliger D, Levy O. Mood impacts on probability weighting functions: “large-gamble” evidence. J Socio-Econ. 2008;37(4):1397–411.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Meyer MA, Booker JM. Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a practical guide, vol. 7. Philadelphia: SIAM; 2001.CrossRef Meyer MA, Booker JM. Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a practical guide, vol. 7. Philadelphia: SIAM; 2001.CrossRef
6.
7.
go back to reference Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.CrossRefPubMed Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kynn M. The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 2008;171(1):239–64. Kynn M. The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 2008;171(1):239–64.
9.
go back to reference Tversky A, Koehler DJ. Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(4):547.CrossRef Tversky A, Koehler DJ. Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(4):547.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gigerenzer G. On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(3):592–6.CrossRef Gigerenzer G. On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(3):592–6.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Koehler JJ. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behav Brain Sci. 1996;19(01):1–17.CrossRef Koehler JJ. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behav Brain Sci. 1996;19(01):1–17.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mullin TM: Understanding and supporting the process of probabilistic estimation. Carnegie-Mellon University; 1986. Mullin TM: Understanding and supporting the process of probabilistic estimation. Carnegie-Mellon University; 1986.
13.
go back to reference Ayyub BM. Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. Boca Raton: CRC press; 2001.CrossRef Ayyub BM. Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. Boca Raton: CRC press; 2001.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Clemen RT, Winkler RL. Aggregating probability distributions. In: Edwards W, Miles Jr R, Von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 154–76.CrossRef Clemen RT, Winkler RL. Aggregating probability distributions. In: Edwards W, Miles Jr R, Von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 154–76.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference French S. Aggregating expert judgement. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales Serie A Matematicas. 2011;105(1):181–206.CrossRef French S. Aggregating expert judgement. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales Serie A Matematicas. 2011;105(1):181–206.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kattan MW, O’Rourke C, Yu C, Chagin K. The Wisdom of Crowds of Doctors: Their Average Predictions Outperform Their Individual Ones. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(4):536–40.CrossRef Kattan MW, O’Rourke C, Yu C, Chagin K. The Wisdom of Crowds of Doctors: Their Average Predictions Outperform Their Individual Ones. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(4):536–40.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Knol AB, Slottje P, van der Sluijs JP, Lebret E. The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2010;9:19.CrossRef Knol AB, Slottje P, van der Sluijs JP, Lebret E. The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2010;9:19.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):1–11.CrossRef Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):1–11.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Leal J, Wordsworth S, Legood R, Blair E. Eliciting expert opinion for economic models: An applied example. Value Health. 2007;10(3):195–203.CrossRefPubMed Leal J, Wordsworth S, Legood R, Blair E. Eliciting expert opinion for economic models: An applied example. Value Health. 2007;10(3):195–203.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Bojke L, Claxton K, Bravo-Vergel Y, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Abrams K. Eliciting distributions to populate decision analytic models. Value Health. 2010;13(5):557–64.CrossRefPubMed Bojke L, Claxton K, Bravo-Vergel Y, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Abrams K. Eliciting distributions to populate decision analytic models. Value Health. 2010;13(5):557–64.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Sperber D, Mortimer D, Lorgelly P, Berlowitz D. An Expert on Every Street Corner? Methods for Eliciting Distributions in Geographically Dispersed Opinion Pools. Value in Health. 2013;16(2):434–437. Sperber D, Mortimer D, Lorgelly P, Berlowitz D. An Expert on Every Street Corner? Methods for Eliciting Distributions in Geographically Dispersed Opinion Pools. Value in Health. 2013;16(2):434–437.
22.
go back to reference Pibouleau L, Chevret S. An Internet-based Method To Elicit Experts’ Beliefs For Bayesian Priors: A Case Study In Intracranial Stent Evaluation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2014;30(4):446–453. Pibouleau L, Chevret S. An Internet-based Method To Elicit Experts’ Beliefs For Bayesian Priors: A Case Study In Intracranial Stent Evaluation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2014;30(4):446–453.
23.
go back to reference Baker E, Bosetti V, Jenni KE, Ricci EC: Facing the experts: Survey mode and expert elicitation. 2014. Baker E, Bosetti V, Jenni KE, Ricci EC: Facing the experts: Survey mode and expert elicitation. 2014.
24.
go back to reference Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.CrossRefPubMed Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Bojke L, Grigore B, Jankovic D, Peters J, Soares M, Stein K. Informing Reimbursement Decisions Using Cost-Effectiveness Modelling: A Guide to the Process of Generating Elicited Priors to Capture Model Uncertainties. PharmacoEconomics. 2017:1–11. Bojke L, Grigore B, Jankovic D, Peters J, Soares M, Stein K. Informing Reimbursement Decisions Using Cost-Effectiveness Modelling: A Guide to the Process of Generating Elicited Priors to Capture Model Uncertainties. PharmacoEconomics. 2017:1–11.
26.
go back to reference Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys: A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–7.CrossRefPubMed Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys: A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–7.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Tanajewski L, Harris R, Harman DJ, Aithal GP, Card TR, Gkountouras G, Berdunov V, Guha IN, Elliott RA. Economic evaluation of a community-based diagnostic pathway to stratify adults for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a Markov model informed by a feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6). Tanajewski L, Harris R, Harman DJ, Aithal GP, Card TR, Gkountouras G, Berdunov V, Guha IN, Elliott RA. Economic evaluation of a community-based diagnostic pathway to stratify adults for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a Markov model informed by a feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6).
28.
go back to reference Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics. 1961:148–70. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics. 1961:148–70.
29.
go back to reference Devilee J, Knol A. Software to support expert elicitation: An exploratory study of existing software packages, RIVM letter report 630003001. Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2012. Devilee J, Knol A. Software to support expert elicitation: An exploratory study of existing software packages, RIVM letter report 630003001. Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2012.
31.
go back to reference Manzi G: BEES: a software for bias elicitation. 2008. Manzi G: BEES: a software for bias elicitation. 2008.
32.
go back to reference Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith G, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 2009;172(1):21–47.CrossRef Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith G, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 2009;172(1):21–47.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference James A, Low Choy S, Mengersen K. Elicitator: An expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25(1):129–45.CrossRef James A, Low Choy S, Mengersen K. Elicitator: An expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25(1):129–45.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Aspinall W. Expert Judgment Elicitation using the Classical Model and EXCALIBUR. In: Seventh Session of the Statistics and Risk Assessment Section’s International Expert Advisory Group on Risk Modeling: Iterative Risk Assessment Processes for Policy Development Under Conditions of Uncertainty I Emerging Infectious Diseases: Round IV. 2008:1–22. Aspinall W. Expert Judgment Elicitation using the Classical Model and EXCALIBUR. In: Seventh Session of the Statistics and Risk Assessment Section’s International Expert Advisory Group on Risk Modeling: Iterative Risk Assessment Processes for Policy Development Under Conditions of Uncertainty I Emerging Infectious Diseases: Round IV. 2008:1–22.
36.
go back to reference Morris DE, Oakley JE, Crowe JA. A web-based tool for eliciting probability distributions from experts. Environ Model Softw. 2014;52(2014):1–4.CrossRef Morris DE, Oakley JE, Crowe JA. A web-based tool for eliciting probability distributions from experts. Environ Model Softw. 2014;52(2014):1–4.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Winkler RL. The assessment of prior distributions in Bayesian analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1967;62(319):776–800.CrossRef Winkler RL. The assessment of prior distributions in Bayesian analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1967;62(319):776–800.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. Methods to Elicit Probability Distributions from Experts: A Systematic Review of Reported Practice in Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(11):991–1003.CrossRefPubMed Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. Methods to Elicit Probability Distributions from Experts: A Systematic Review of Reported Practice in Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(11):991–1003.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Grigore B: An evaluation of methods for eliciting expert opinion in health technology assessment. PhD Thesis. Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry; 2015. Grigore B: An evaluation of methods for eliciting expert opinion in health technology assessment. PhD Thesis. Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry; 2015.
41.
go back to reference Mann RE, Smart RG, Govoni R. The epidemiology of alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol Res Health. 2003;27:209–19.PubMed Mann RE, Smart RG, Govoni R. The epidemiology of alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol Res Health. 2003;27:209–19.PubMed
42.
go back to reference Angus C, Latimer N, Preston L, Li J, Purshouse R. What are the implications for policy makers? A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for alcohol misuse in primary care. Frontiers in psychiatry. 2014;5 Angus C, Latimer N, Preston L, Li J, Purshouse R. What are the implications for policy makers? A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for alcohol misuse in primary care. Frontiers in psychiatry. 2014;5
43.
go back to reference Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe SJ. A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis. Qual Health Res. 1993;3(4):430–41.CrossRef Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe SJ. A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis. Qual Health Res. 1993;3(4):430–41.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
Authors
Bogdan Grigore
Jaime Peters
Christopher Hyde
Ken Stein
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017 Go to the issue