Patient-level evidence obtained from clinical trials is essential in assessing the cost-effectiveness of health care technologies. Given the increasing demand for primary evidence and limited public resources for health care research, research funding organisations are routinely called to make decisions on which clinical trials to fund. Such decisions need to be informed by evidence on the likely costs and benefits of competing research programmes. Two main analytic approaches have been proposed to provide such evidence, ‘payback of research’ and ‘value of information’. This work applied the ‘payback’ and ‘value of information’ methodologies to case studies representing proposals for clinical trials in cancer. This application gave estimates of the value of undertaking the trials and offered an insight into the strengths, limitations and usefulness of the methods. ‘Payback of research’ and ‘value of information’ can help with different funding decisions in the context of different funding streams, they are practical to undertake and can be readily incorporated into the existing research funding processes. It is suggested that the methods should be used as part of existing deliberative processes, to provide additional assurance that limited public resources are allocated to clinical trials which are likely to result in benefits to the population.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:571824 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Andronis, Lazaros |
| Publisher | University of Birmingham |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/4153/ |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds