Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:56:55.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging 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 Excellence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Louise Longworth ,
Mark J. Sculpher ,
Laura Bojke  and
Jonathan C. Tosh
Louise Longworth
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Mark J. Sculpher
Affiliation:
University of York
Laura Bojke
Affiliation:
University of York
Jonathan C. Tosh
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Keywords

Health policyEvaluation studiesDecision makingMethods
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 180 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Cooksey, D. A review of UK health research funding. London: HM Treasury; 2006.Google Scholar
2. Devlin, N, Parkin, D, Gold, M. WHO evaluates NICE. BMJ. 2003;327:1061–1062.Google Scholar
3. Drummond, M, Sorenson, C. Nasty or nice? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value in Health. 2009;12 (Suppl 2):S8–S13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. First Report of Session 2007–08. London: The Stationery Office Limited, House of Commons; 2008.Google Scholar
5. Littlejohns, P, Garner, S, Doyle, N, Macbeth, F, Barnett, D, Longson, C. 10 years of NICE: Still growing and still controversial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:417–424.Google Scholar
6. Longworth, L, Bojke, L, Tosh, J, Sculpher, M. MRC-NICE Scoping Project: Identifying the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's methodological research priorities and an initial set of priorities. ScHARR Discussion paper 09/13. 2009. http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/discussion.html (accessed March 7, 2010).Google Scholar
7. Longworth, L, Longson, C. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: Cutting edge or tried and trusted? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:729–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Annual Report 2008/9. London: NICE; 2009.Google Scholar
9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Medical Research Council funded projects. http://admin.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/researchanddevelopment/MRCFundedProjects.jsp (accessed November 29, 2010).Google Scholar
10. Sculpher, M. NICE's 2008 methods guide: Sensible consolidation or opportunities missed? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:721–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Longworth et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table

Download Longworth et al. supplementary material(File)
File 51.7 KB