+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies

The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies

Journal of Health Economics 18(3): 341-364

The literature which considers the statistical properties of cost-effectiveness analysis has focused on estimating the sampling distribution of either an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or incremental net benefit for classical inference. However, it is argued here that rules of inference are arbitrary and entirely irrelevant to the decisions which clinical and economic evaluations claim to inform. Decisions should be based only on the mean net benefits irrespective of whether differences are statistically significant or fall outside a Bayesian range of equivalence. Failure to make decisions in this way by accepting the arbitrary rules of inference will impose costs which can be measured in terms of resources or health benefits forgone. The distribution of net benefit is only relevant to deciding whether more information is required. A framework for decision making and establishing the value of additional information is presented which is consistent with the decision rules in CEA. This framework can distinguish the simultaneous but conceptually separate steps of deciding which alternatives should be chosen, given existing information, from the question of whether more information should be acquired. It also ensures that the type of information acquired is driven by the objectives of the health care system, is consistent with the budget constraint on service provision and that research is designed efficiently.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 047671314

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10537899

DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00039-3

Related references

Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Economics 20(1): 2, 2011

Methodological Bias Can Lead the Cochrane Collaboration to Irrelevance in Public Health Decision-Making. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases 9(10): E0004165, 2015

Twelve modern digital technologies that are transforming decision making for diabetes and all areas of health care. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 7(2): 291-295, 2013

Economic evaluation and decision-making in health. The role of economic evaluation in the adoption and spread of health technologies. 2008 SESPAS Report. Gaceta Sanitaria 22(Suppl. 1): 137-142, 2008

A new approach to decision making in primary health care. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 209(1174): 89-96, 1980

A new approach to decision making for health care managers. Health Management Forum 1(1): 71-87, 1980

An approach to develop effective health care decision making for women in prison. Journal of Palliative Medicine 8(2): 432-439, 2005

Multi-criteria decision making - An approach to setting priorities in health care. Statistics in Medicine 18(23): 3345-3354, 1999

Economic evaluation and health care decision-making. Health Policy 36(3): 215-229, 1996

How health economic evaluation (HEE) contributes to decision-making in public health care: the case of Brazil. Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitat Im Gesundheitswesen 108(7): 405-412, 2014

Stochastic dominance: an approach to decision making under risk. Risk Analysis 6(1): 35-41, 1986

DECIDE: a decision-making model for more effective decision making by health care managers. Health Care Manager 27(2): 118-127, 2008

New frontiers in health care decision-making: information, decision-making, and divided loyalties. South Carolina Nurse 4(3): 5-6, 1997

Balancing liberation and protection: a moderate approach to adolescent health care decision-making. Bioethics 25(4): 202-208, 2011