Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8068
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLongworth, L-
dc.contributor.authorSculpher, MJ-
dc.contributor.authorBojke, L-
dc.contributor.authorTosh, JC-
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-25T10:33:15Z-
dc.date.available2014-02-25T10:33:15Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(2), 180 - 187, 2011en_US
dc.identifier.issn0266-4623-
dc.identifier.urihttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8251386en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8068-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this study was to establish a list of priority topics for methods research to support decision making at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Methods: Potential priorities for methods research topics were identified through a focused literature review, interviews, an email survey, a workshop and a Web-based feedback exercise. Participants were members of the NICE secretariat and its advisory bodies, representatives from academia, industry, and other organizations working closely with NICE. The Web exercise was open to anyone to complete but publicized among the above groups. Results: A list of potential topics was collated. Priorities for further research differed according to the type of respondent and the extent to which they work directly with NICE. Priorities emerging from the group closest to NICE included: methodology for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons; synthesis of qualitative evidence; research relating to the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in decision making; methods and empirical research for establishing the cost-effectiveness threshold; and determining how data on the uncertainty of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data should be taken into account in the decision-making process. Priorities emerging from the broadest group of respondents (through the Web exercise) included: methods for extrapolating beyond evidence observed in trials, methods for capturing benefits not included in the QALY and methods to assess when technologies should be recommended in the context of further evidence gathering. Conclusions: Consideration needs to be given to the needs of those who use the outputs of research for decision making when determining priorities for future methods research.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNIHR Medical Research Council,en_US
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.subjectHealth policyen_US
dc.subjectEvaluation studiesen_US
dc.subjectDecision makingen_US
dc.subjectMethodsen_US
dc.titleBridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: A review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462311000043-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group/HERG-
Appears in Collections:Publications
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf71.42 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.