Grigore Bogdan, Peters Jaime, Hyde Christopher, Stein Ken
Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement (ESMI), Institute for Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Room 3.09.3, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Sep 4;17(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在卫生技术评估中基于模型的经济评估所需的可用信息常常需要专家意见来补充。在此背景下,我们将专家意见征集定义为将关于感兴趣数量的专家意见及其相关不确定性编码为概率分布的过程。当与主持人进行面对面专家意见征集的机会有限时,可以进行远程征集,克服寻找与专家会面的合适时间的挑战,并允许接触距离过远而无法实际进行面对面会议的专家。然而,远程征集与较低的回复率以及征集过程中对专家的有限协助相关。本研究的目的是通过探讨征集方式对所征集信念的影响,为远程征集工具的开发提供信息。
开发了一个基于Excel的工具(EXPLICIT)来协助征集过程,包括专家准备和他们的回复记录。邀请全科医生(GPs)提供关于人群饮酒行为的专家意见。他们被随机分配通过面对面会议或电子邮件完成征集。在两组的征集过程中都使用了EXPLICIT。
15名全科医生完成了征集过程。通过电子邮件进行的征集比面对面会议时间更长(13分30秒对10分26秒,p = 0.1),并且电子邮件征集的估计包含的不确定性更少。然而,最终的汇总分布是可比的。
EXPLICIT在促进征集任务以及通过电子邮件从专家那里获得专家意见方面都很有用。研究结果支持这样一种观点,即在卫生技术评估的限制范围内,远程自我管理的征集是为政策制定提供信息的一种可行方法,尽管可能会观察到较低的回复率,并且可能需要为个别会议留出更多时间。