1 / 41

12/04/2012

PCORI Update: Lenore Arab , PhD, MS Value of Information: Starting the Discussion Doug Bell, MD, PhD. 12/04/2012. The Rapid Response Team: Who We Are. Director, Dr. Lenore Arab Project Coordinator, Robin Faria Study Coordinator, Erica Sasman. Outline. PCORI Evolving Structure

bsullins
Download Presentation

12/04/2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PCORI Update: Lenore Arab, PhD, MSValue of Information: Starting the DiscussionDoug Bell, MD, PhD 12/04/2012

  2. The Rapid Response Team: Who We Are Director, Dr. Lenore Arab Project Coordinator, Robin Faria Study Coordinator, Erica Sasman

  3. Outline PCORI Evolving Structure PCORI Status of Current Applications Currently Open RFAs: January & February 2013 LoIs Future PCORI Disease Priority Areas Value of Information Analyses- why you should care, and what it might entail

  4. PCORI Organization: Divisions

  5. Status of Current Proposals

  6. PCORI Funding Opportunity 5: Inaugural Cycle • Topic • Improving Methods for Conducting Patient-Centered Outcomes Research • Due Dates • LOI (required): 1/15/2013; 6/15/2013; 10/15/2013 • Application: 3/13/2013; 8/15/2013; 12/17/2013 • Funding • $250,000 direct per year for three years (shorter duration encouraged)

  7. Improving Methods for Conducting Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I Specific Questions of Interest Development of methods for patient centeredness Research in methods to conduct systematic reviews of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Development of methods for generating, selecting, and prioritizing topics for research and for including patients and stakeholders in the peer‐review process. Development and refinement of general analytic methods. Development and refinement of design‐specific analytic methods.

  8. Improving Methods for Conducting Patient-Centered Outcomes Research II Specific Questions of Interest, Continued 6. Research that determines the validity and efficiency of data sources commonly used in PCOR. 7. Research related to Patient-Centered Outcomes (PCOs) and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). 8. Research in methods to enhance the reproducibility, transparency, and replication of PCOR research. 9. Research that evaluates and compares strategies for training researchers, patients, and other stakeholders in the methods of patient‐centered outcomes research.

  9. PCORI Funding Opportunity, Cycle III – 3rd Opportunity • Topics • Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options • Improving Healthcare Systems • Communication and Dissemination Research • Addressing Disparities • Due Dates • LOI (required): 2/15/2013 • Application: 4/15/2013 • Funding • $500,000 direct cost per year for xx years?

  10. PCORI Interest Survey • Purpose of Survey: to actively engage faculty interested in PCORI research and find ways to further help the research community in areas of interest • Incentive: two winners per week for $50 gift card • Preliminary Results on Week 1 of Survey: • 34 respondents • First winners to be announced Thursday • Cycle II and Cycle III Interest:

  11. PCORI Staff Choice of Disease Priority Areas

  12. Value of Information: Starting the Discussion Douglas Bell, MD, PhD

  13. Input Variables and Values for Treatment A and B

  14. Expected Values of Outcomes of Interest Given Treatment A or B

  15. Outcomes from 10 Simulations of Treatment A and B Assuming a WTP Threshold of $750

  16. Value of Information An approach to research prioritization which uses Bayesian methods to estimate the potential benefits of gathering further information (through more research) before making a decision (Meyers, et al., 2012) A tool of the decision sciences, estimates the potential economic losses associated [with] choosing suboptimal policies when that decision is made with uncertain information (Rhein, 2012) A decision analytic technique that explicitly evaluates the benefit of collecting additional information to reduce or eliminate uncertainty.(Yokota and Thompson, 2004)

  17. General Challenges to the Use of VOI for Research • Prioritization • Resources needed to develop appropriate models • Personnel • Time • Computing Resources • Scope of VOI • Prioritizing across disease areas • Prioritizing within a condition • Prioritizing specific comparative effectiveness research • Stakeholder Engagement • Lack of familiarity with the methodology • Timing of VOI

  18. Resources Needed to Conduct VOI Personnel Time Computing Resources “minimal modeling appears to be most useful when an intervention affects quality of life alone” 3

  19. Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) Difference between the expected value given perfect information and the value given current information i.e. the upper bound of the opportunity cost of making a wrong decision; any effort to improve the quality of available data that costs less than the EVPI is worth pursuing

  20. Calculating EVPI EVPI is calculated as the expected value of a decision made with perfect information minus the expected value of a decision made with the existing information: EVPI = EmaxjNB(j,) - maxjE NB(j,)

  21. Using EVPI for Research Prioritization Go/no go measurement to determine if additional research is appropriate Comparison for cost effectiveness of research across different interventions

  22. Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information (EVPPI) The value of being able to know the outcome of another related uncertainty instead of the original value itself before making adecision. It is quantified as the highest price the decision-maker is willing to pay for being able to know the uncertainty before making a decision. Note that it is essentially the value of perfect information on the second variable.

  23. Using VOI by Research Sponsor, such as PCORI • Perform VOI prior to solicitation for research proposals and only request areas identified as having acceptable EVPI/EVPPI • Perform VOI after initial review of proposals as part of funding decisions with higher EVPI/EVPPI receiving higher priority for funding • Research sponsor could encourage or require investigators to include VOI analysis as part of rationale for proposals

  24. Treatment Decision Tree

  25. Common uses of VOI Justify additional research in advance of adapting specific interventions Identifying which areas contribute the most to uncertainty

  26. References Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Board of Governors Meeting, www.pcori.org, 2012. Minimal Modeling Approaches to Value of Information Analysis for Health Research, Metlzer, et al. www.ahrq.gov, 2011. Systematizing the Use of Value of Information Analysis in Prioritizing Systematic Reviews. Hoomans, et al. www.ahrq.gov, 2012. Value of Information and Research Prioritization. Rein. NORC at the U of Chicago, 2012. Value of Information Literature Analysis: A Review of Applications in Health Risk Management. Yokota and Thompson, MDM, 2004. Value of Information on Preference Heterogeneity and Individualized Care, Basu and Meltzer, MDM, 2007. Value-of-Information Analysis for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Prioritization, Myers et al., www.pcori.org, 2012.

  27. Thank You! • Contact us at: RRT@mednet.ucla.edu or (310) 267-4258

More Related