Identification and expert panel rating of key structural approaches applied in health economic obesity models

Bjoern Schwander; Mark Nuijten; Mickael Hiligsmann; Michelle Queally; Reiner Leidl; Manuela Joore; Marije Oosterhoff; Emma Frew; Philippe Van Wilder; Maarten Postma; Silvia Evers

doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005

Identification and expert panel rating of key structural approaches applied in health economic obesity models

Bjoern Schwander^*, Mark Nuijten, Mickael Hiligsmann, Michelle Queally, Reiner Leidl, Manuela Joore, Marije Oosterhoff, Emma Frew, Philippe Van Wilder, Maarten Postma, Silvia Evers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

4 Citations (Web of Science)

41 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to assess the key structural modelling approaches applied in published obesity models, and to provide an expert consensus to improve the methodology and consistency of the application of decision-analytic modelling in obesity research.

Methods: Using a previously published systematic literature search as basis, ten individual interviews, and a face-to-face expert panel meeting were conducted. Within the expert panel meeting, the interview findings were presented and discussed, rated and where possible consensus statements were obtained. In particular, five topics of interest were assessed: time horizon, model type, obesity-related clinical events simulated, event simulation approaches and external event validation.

Results: In addition to generic modelling standards, several obesity-specific recommendations were generated: Simulating a lifetime horizon was regarded as optimal (100% agreement); Ideally, both short and long-term results should be presented (100%); Using a risk equation approach for simulating the clinical events was the most preferred approach (60%) followed by applying a body mass index (BMI) related relative risk to a base risk estimate (30%); Continuous BMI approaches were preferred (100%); An individual patient/microsimulation state transition model was regarded as preferred modelling approach (90%); Discrete event simulation (DES) was regarded as the most flexible approach for building an obesity model but it was recognised as complex, and more difficult to build, populate and to disseminate; Performing an external validation was rated as important (100%).

Conclusions: The obtained insights, discussion and consensus can provide valuable information for developing decision-analytic models to generate high-quality and transparent economic evidence for obesity interventions. (C) 2020 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	314-322
Number of pages	9
Journal	Health Policy and Technology
Volume	9
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005
Publication status	Published - Sept 2020

Keywords

Obesity
Clinical events
Decision models
Health economic assessment
Expert panel
Model structure
DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION
OVERWEIGHT
CARE

Access to Document

10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005

Full TextFinal published version, 673 KBLicence: Taverne

Cite this

@article{e50e909d70d24d5baa2c30be9bb2a5a2,

title = "Identification and expert panel rating of key structural approaches applied in health economic obesity models",

abstract = "Objectives: This study aims to assess the key structural modelling approaches applied in published obesity models, and to provide an expert consensus to improve the methodology and consistency of the application of decision-analytic modelling in obesity research.Methods: Using a previously published systematic literature search as basis, ten individual interviews, and a face-to-face expert panel meeting were conducted. Within the expert panel meeting, the interview findings were presented and discussed, rated and where possible consensus statements were obtained. In particular, five topics of interest were assessed: time horizon, model type, obesity-related clinical events simulated, event simulation approaches and external event validation.Results: In addition to generic modelling standards, several obesity-specific recommendations were generated: Simulating a lifetime horizon was regarded as optimal (100% agreement); Ideally, both short and long-term results should be presented (100%); Using a risk equation approach for simulating the clinical events was the most preferred approach (60%) followed by applying a body mass index (BMI) related relative risk to a base risk estimate (30%); Continuous BMI approaches were preferred (100%); An individual patient/microsimulation state transition model was regarded as preferred modelling approach (90%); Discrete event simulation (DES) was regarded as the most flexible approach for building an obesity model but it was recognised as complex, and more difficult to build, populate and to disseminate; Performing an external validation was rated as important (100%).Conclusions: The obtained insights, discussion and consensus can provide valuable information for developing decision-analytic models to generate high-quality and transparent economic evidence for obesity interventions. (C) 2020 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "Obesity, Clinical events, Decision models, Health economic assessment, Expert panel, Model structure, DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION, OVERWEIGHT, CARE",

author = "Bjoern Schwander and Mark Nuijten and Mickael Hiligsmann and Michelle Queally and Reiner Leidl and Manuela Joore and Marije Oosterhoff and Emma Frew and {Van Wilder}, Philippe and Maarten Postma and Silvia Evers",

year = "2020",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

pages = "314--322",

journal = "Health Policy and Technology",

issn = "2211-8837",

publisher = "Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identification and expert panel rating of key structural approaches applied in health economic obesity models

AU - Schwander, Bjoern

AU - Nuijten, Mark

AU - Hiligsmann, Mickael

AU - Queally, Michelle

AU - Leidl, Reiner

AU - Joore, Manuela

AU - Oosterhoff, Marije

AU - Frew, Emma

AU - Van Wilder, Philippe

AU - Postma, Maarten

AU - Evers, Silvia

PY - 2020/9

Y1 - 2020/9

N2 - Objectives: This study aims to assess the key structural modelling approaches applied in published obesity models, and to provide an expert consensus to improve the methodology and consistency of the application of decision-analytic modelling in obesity research.Methods: Using a previously published systematic literature search as basis, ten individual interviews, and a face-to-face expert panel meeting were conducted. Within the expert panel meeting, the interview findings were presented and discussed, rated and where possible consensus statements were obtained. In particular, five topics of interest were assessed: time horizon, model type, obesity-related clinical events simulated, event simulation approaches and external event validation.Results: In addition to generic modelling standards, several obesity-specific recommendations were generated: Simulating a lifetime horizon was regarded as optimal (100% agreement); Ideally, both short and long-term results should be presented (100%); Using a risk equation approach for simulating the clinical events was the most preferred approach (60%) followed by applying a body mass index (BMI) related relative risk to a base risk estimate (30%); Continuous BMI approaches were preferred (100%); An individual patient/microsimulation state transition model was regarded as preferred modelling approach (90%); Discrete event simulation (DES) was regarded as the most flexible approach for building an obesity model but it was recognised as complex, and more difficult to build, populate and to disseminate; Performing an external validation was rated as important (100%).Conclusions: The obtained insights, discussion and consensus can provide valuable information for developing decision-analytic models to generate high-quality and transparent economic evidence for obesity interventions. (C) 2020 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Objectives: This study aims to assess the key structural modelling approaches applied in published obesity models, and to provide an expert consensus to improve the methodology and consistency of the application of decision-analytic modelling in obesity research.Methods: Using a previously published systematic literature search as basis, ten individual interviews, and a face-to-face expert panel meeting were conducted. Within the expert panel meeting, the interview findings were presented and discussed, rated and where possible consensus statements were obtained. In particular, five topics of interest were assessed: time horizon, model type, obesity-related clinical events simulated, event simulation approaches and external event validation.Results: In addition to generic modelling standards, several obesity-specific recommendations were generated: Simulating a lifetime horizon was regarded as optimal (100% agreement); Ideally, both short and long-term results should be presented (100%); Using a risk equation approach for simulating the clinical events was the most preferred approach (60%) followed by applying a body mass index (BMI) related relative risk to a base risk estimate (30%); Continuous BMI approaches were preferred (100%); An individual patient/microsimulation state transition model was regarded as preferred modelling approach (90%); Discrete event simulation (DES) was regarded as the most flexible approach for building an obesity model but it was recognised as complex, and more difficult to build, populate and to disseminate; Performing an external validation was rated as important (100%).Conclusions: The obtained insights, discussion and consensus can provide valuable information for developing decision-analytic models to generate high-quality and transparent economic evidence for obesity interventions. (C) 2020 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Obesity

KW - Clinical events

KW - Decision models

KW - Health economic assessment

KW - Expert panel

KW - Model structure

KW - DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION

KW - OVERWEIGHT

KW - CARE

U2 - 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005

DO - 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.03.005

M3 - Article

SN - 2211-8837

VL - 9

SP - 314

EP - 322

JO - Health Policy and Technology

JF - Health Policy and Technology

IS - 3

ER -