↓ Skip to main content

Navigating Time and Uncertainty in Health Technology Appraisal: Would a Map Help?

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Navigating Time and Uncertainty in Health Technology Appraisal: Would a Map Help?
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0077-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher McCabe, Richard Edlin, Peter Hall

Abstract

Healthcare systems are increasingly under pressure to provide funding for innovative technologies. These technologies tend to be characterized by their potential to make valued contributions to patient health in areas of relative unmet need, and have high acquisition costs and uncertainty within the evidence base on their actual impact on health. Decision makers are increasingly interested in linking reimbursement strategies to the degree of uncertainty in the evidence base and, as a result, reimbursement for innovative technologies is frequently linked to some form of patient access or risk-sharing scheme. As the dominant methods of economic evaluation report final outcomes only at the time horizon of the analysis, they present only aggregated information. This omits much of the information available on how net benefit is distributed within the time horizon. In this article, we introduce the Net Benefit Probability Map (NBPM), which maps net health benefit versus time to identify how certain decision makers can be about the benefit of technologies at multiple time points. Using an illustrative example, we show how the NBPM can inform decision makers about how long it will take for innovative technologies to 'pay off', how methodological choices on discount rates affect results and how alternative payment mechanisms can reduce the risk for decision makers facing innovative technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Canada 2 4%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2014.
All research outputs
#7,217,157
of 23,543,207 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#808
of 1,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,773
of 199,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,543,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.