Values in Modelling: Video Series Development and Evaluation Survey

• Published in: Applied health economics and health policy 2023-09, Vol.21 (5), p.813-820
• Main Authors: Harvard, Stephanie, Easterbrook, Adam, Werker, Greg, McLean, Alison, Adibi, Amin, Murphy, David
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Benefits; Citizen participation; Computer simulation; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Decisions; Design; Economic models; Economics; Educational materials; Electronic cigarettes; Ethics; Focus groups; Health Administration; Health care expenditures; Health Economics; Health sciences; Legitimacy; Likert scale; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Patients; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Public Health; Public involvement; Public participation; Qualitative research; Quality of Life Research; Research Letter; Scientists; Simulation; Software; Specialists; Value; Values
• ISSN: 1175-5652; 1179-1896
• DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00820-w

In health economics, decision analytic models are used to study different aspects of healthcare systems, with a focus on costs and health outcomes. Many types of decision analytic models are used, including computer simulation models, computer programs that use step-by-step methods to explore the state of a system over time [1]. In general, building any type of model requires considerable training and expertise, and modelling processes in the field have typically involved only researchers and other specialists. However, major efforts are underway to increase patient and public involvement in health economics modelling [2-4]. One strong rationale for patient and public involvement in modelling is that the process generally requires making social and ethical value judgements: such judgements have been discussed in various terms [5-7], but can be understood as "decisions where there is flexibility from a scientific perspective, in that scientists agree there is more than one legitimate way of doing things, and there could be social or ethical consequences following the decision, whether these consequences are immediate or downstream" [8]. As Harvard et al. [7] have argued, the inevitability of value judgements in modelling gives a clear ethical/democratic reason to involve patients and public in the process, as long as one agrees with the view that scientists are no better equipped to make such judgements than anyone else [9]. Furthermore, patient and public involvement in modelling could have practical benefits; for example, van Voorn et al. [10] have argued that patient involvement in modelling could help improve model credibility (i.e., adherence to good practice guidelines), salience (i.e., applicability in context) and legitimacy (i.e., appropriate inclusion of stakeholder perspectives) [p. 130]. In a qualitative study with health economics modellers, participants described a number of potential benefits of involving patients in modelling, including benefits to models (e.g., ensuring models include only relevant phenomena), to the modelling process (e.g., improved transparency, legitimacy), and to modellers themselves (e.g., improving knowledge and communication skills) [11].In summary, there are strong reasons to sustain initiatives to increase patient and public participation in modelling, while increasing awareness and understanding of the social and ethical value judgements that modelling teams must inevitably make together. While there is a consider