↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian Methods for Calibrating Health Policy Models: A Tutorial

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Bayesian Methods for Calibrating Health Policy Models: A Tutorial
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0494-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas A. Menzies, Djøra I. Soeteman, Ankur Pandya, Jane J. Kim

Abstract

Mathematical simulation models are commonly used to inform health policy decisions. These health policy models represent the social and biological mechanisms that determine health and economic outcomes, combine multiple sources of evidence about how policy alternatives will impact those outcomes, and synthesize outcomes into summary measures salient for the policy decision. Calibrating these health policy models to fit empirical data can provide face validity and improve the quality of model predictions. Bayesian methods provide powerful tools for model calibration. These methods summarize information relevant to a particular policy decision into (1) prior distributions for model parameters, (2) structural assumptions of the model, and (3) a likelihood function created from the calibration data, combining these different sources of evidence via Bayes' theorem. This article provides a tutorial on Bayesian approaches for model calibration, describing the theoretical basis for Bayesian calibration approaches as well as pragmatic considerations that arise in the tasks of creating calibration targets, estimating the posterior distribution, and obtaining results to inform the policy decision. These considerations, as well as the specific steps for implementing the calibration, are described in the context of an extended worked example about the policy choice to provide (or not provide) treatment for a hypothetical infectious disease. Given the many simplifications and subjective decisions required to create prior distributions, model structure, and likelihood, calibration should be considered an exercise in creating a reasonable model that produces valid evidence for policy, rather than as a technique for identifying a unique theoretically optimal summary of the evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 12%
Engineering 7 8%
Mathematics 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 32 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,229,066
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,396
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,605
of 311,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 311,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.