The Library
A practical application of value of information and prospective payback of research to prioritize evaluative research
Tools
Tools
Tools
Andronis, L. (Lazaros) , Billingham, Lucinda J., Bryan, Stirling, James, Nicholas D. and Barton, Pelham (2016) A practical application of value of information and prospective payback of research to prioritize evaluative research. Medical Decision Making, 36 (3). pp. 321-334. doi:10.1177/0272989X15594369
Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15594369
Abstract
Background and Objectives:
Efforts to ensure that funded research represents “value for money” have led to increasing calls for the use of analytic methods in research prioritization. A number of analytic approaches have been proposed to assist research funding decisions, the most prominent of which are value of information (VOI) and prospective payback of research (PPoR). Despite the increasing interest in the topic, there are insufficient VOI and PPoR applications on the same case study to contrast their methods and compare their outcomes. We undertook VOI and PPoR analyses to determine the value of conducting 2 proposed research programs. The application served as a vehicle for identifying differences and similarities between the methods, provided insight into the assumptions and practical requirements of undertaking prospective analyses for research prioritization, and highlighted areas for future research.
Methods:
VOI and PPoR were applied to case studies representing proposals for clinical trials in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. Decision models were built to synthesize the evidence available prior to the funding decision. VOI (expected value of perfect and sample information) and PPoR (PATHS model) analyses were undertaken using the developed models.
Results and Conclusions:
VOI and PPoR results agreed in direction, suggesting that the proposed trials would be cost-effective investments. However, results differed in magnitude, largely due to the way each method conceptualizes the possible outcomes of further research and the implementation of research results in practice. Compared with VOI, PPoR is less complex but requires more assumptions. Although the approaches are not free from limitations, they can provide useful input for research funding decisions.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | ||||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Cancer Research Unit Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Clinical trials, Peer review of research grant proposals, Prostate -- Cancer, Lungs -- Cancer | ||||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Medical Decision Making | ||||||||||
| Publisher: | Sage Publications, Inc. | ||||||||||
| ISSN: | 0272-989X | ||||||||||
| Official Date: | 1 April 2016 | ||||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||||
| Volume: | 36 | ||||||||||
| Number: | 3 | ||||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 321-334 | ||||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1177/0272989X15594369 | ||||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
