Discrete Event Simulation: The Preferred Technique for Health Economic Evaluations?

被引:87
作者
Caro, Jaime J. [1 ,2 ]
Moeller, Joergen [3 ]
Getsios, Denis [4 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & Occupat Hlth, Div Gen Internal Med, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] United BioSource Corp, Lexington, MA USA
[3] UnitedBioSource Corp, Eslov, Sweden
[4] UnitedBioSource Corp, Halifax, NS, Canada
关键词
decision tree; discrete event simulation; economic evaluation; Markov; modeling; PHARMACOECONOMICS; MODEL; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00775.x
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: To argue that discrete event simulation should be preferred to cohort Markov models for economic evaluations in health care. Methods: The basis for the modeling techniques is reviewed. For many health-care decisions, existing data are insufficient to fully inform them, necessitating the use of modeling to estimate the consequences that are relevant to decision-makers. These models must reflect what is known about the problem at a level of detail sufficient to inform the questions. Oversimplification will result in estimates that are not only inaccurate, but potentially misleading. Results: Markov cohort models, though currently popular, have so many limitations and inherent assumptions that they are inadequate to inform most health-care decisions. An event-based individual simulation offers an alternative much better suited to the problem. A properly designed discrete event simulation provides more accurate, relevant estimates without being computationally prohibitive. It does require more data and may be a challenge to convey transparently, but these are necessary trade-offs to provide meaningful and valid results. Conclusion: In our opinion, discrete event simulation should be the preferred technique for health economic evaluations today.
引用
收藏
页码:1056 / 1060
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, EUR J HLTH EC, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10198-003-0205-2
[2]  
BANKS J, 2001, PEARSON ED INT SERIE
[3]   A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies [J].
Brennan, Alan ;
Chick, Stephen E. ;
Davies, Ruth .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2006, 15 (12) :1295-1310
[4]  
Buxton MJ, 1997, HEALTH ECON, V6, P217, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199705)6:3<217::AID-HEC267>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-W
[6]   The impact of widespread access to organized stroke care in Canada [J].
Caro, J. J. ;
Huybrechts, K. F. ;
Kongnakorn, T. ;
Ozer, Stillman, I ;
Sharma, M. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 (03) :A181-A182
[7]   Pharmacoeconamic analyses using discrete event simulation [J].
Caro, JJ .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2005, 23 (04) :323-332
[8]   Accuracy versus transparency in pharmacoeconomic modelling finding the right balance [J].
Eddy, David M. .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2006, 24 (09) :837-844
[9]   Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: A case study and review [J].
Karnon J. ;
Brown J. .
Health Care Management Science, 1998, 1 (2) :133-140
[10]   Use of pharmacoeconomics in prescribing research. Part 5: modelling - beyond clinical trials [J].
Lang, DL ;
Lopert, R ;
Hill, SR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2003, 28 (05) :433-439