Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fenwick, E.
Right arrow Articles by Sculpher, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fenwick, E.
Right arrow Articles by Sculpher, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 28, No. 1, 21-32 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07308751

The Value of Implementation and the Value of Information: Combined and Uneven Development

Elisabeth Fenwick, PhD

Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, e.fenwick{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk

Karl Claxton, PhD

Department of Economics and Related Studies, Centre for Health Economics University of York, York, UK

Mark Sculpher, PhD

Centre for Health Economics University of York, York, UK

Aim. In a budget-constrained health care system, the decision to invest in strategies to improve the implementation of cost-effective technologies must be made alongside decisions regarding investment in the technologies themselves and investment in further research. This article presents a single, unified framework that simultaneously addresses the problem of allocating funds between these separate but linked activities. Methods. The framework presents a simple 4-state world where both information and implementation can be either at the current level or ``perfect.'' Through this framework, it is possible to determine the maximum return to further research and an upper bound on the value of adopting implementation strategies. The framework is illustrated through case studies of health care technologies selected from those previously considered by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Results. Through the case studies, several key factors that influence the expected values of perfect information and perfect implementation are identified. These factors include the maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio, the level of uncertainty surrounding the adoption decision, the expected net benefits associated with the technologies, the current level of implementation, and the size of the eligible population. Conclusions. Previous methods for valuing implementation strategies have not distinguished the value of efficacy research and the value of strategies to change the level of implementation. This framework demonstrates that the value of information and the value of implementation can be examined separately but simultaneously in a single framework. This can usefully inform policy decisions about investment in health care services, further research, and adopting implementation strategies that are likely to differ between technologies.

Key Words: value of information analysis • value of implementation • health care decision making • Bayesian analysis. (Med Decis Making 2008;28:21—32)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?