Correction to: Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance­Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.

In Sect. 3.3.1, the second sentence of the second paragraph.

Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance-Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review current use of experts within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance-making programmes, identify improvements in use of expert judgement, and to assess tools and protocols to support the elicitation of information from experts for use by NICE. METHODS: The study comprised a review of NICE process guides; semi-structured interviews with individuals representing each NICE guidance-making programme and a comparison of the suitability of currently available tools and protocols for expert elicitation to the requirements of NICE programmes. RESULTS: Information elicited from experts and the way in which it is used varies across NICE guidance-making programmes. Experts' involvement can be as intensive as being a member of a committee and thus having direct influence on recommendations or limited one-off consultations on specific parameters. We identified 16 tools for expert elicitation that were potentially relevant. None fully met the requirements of NICE, although an existing tool could be potentially adapted. Ongoing research to develop a reference protocol for expert elicitation in healthcare decision making may be of use in future. CONCLUSIONS: NICE uses expert judgement across all its guidance-making programmes, but its uses vary considerably. There is no currently available tool for expert elicitation suitable for use by NICE. However, adaptation of an existing tool or ongoing research in the area could address this in the future.

Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was established in 1999 and provides national guidance and advice to improve health and social care. Several steps in the research cycle have been identified that can support the reduction of waste that occurs in biomedical research. The first step in the process is ensuring appropriate research priority setting occurs so only the questions that are needed to fill existing gaps in the evidence are funded. This paper summarises the research priority setting processes at NICE. METHODS: NICE uses its guidance production processes to identify and prioritise research questions through systematic reviews, economic analyses and stakeholder consultations and then highlights those priorities by engagement with the research community. NICE also highlights its methodological areas for research to ensure the appropriate development and growth of the evidence landscape. RESULTS: NICE has prioritised research questions through its guidance production and methodological work and has successfully had several research products funded through the National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. This paper summarises those activities and results. CONCLUSIONS: This activity of NICE therefore reduces research waste by ensuring that the research it recommends has been systematically prioritised through evidence reviews and stakeholder input.

Disinvestment and Value-Based Purchasing Strategies for Pharmaceuticals: An International Review.

Pharmaceutical expenditure has increased rapidly across many Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries over the past three decades. This growth is an increasing concern for governments and other third-party payers seeking to provide equitable and comprehensive healthcare within sustainable budgets. In order to create headroom for increasing utilisation, and to fund new high-cost therapies, there is an active push to 'disinvest' from low-value drugs. The aim of this article is to review how reimbursement policy decision makers have sought to partially or completely disinvest from drugs in a range of OECD countries (UK, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) where they are publicly funded or subsidised. We employed a systematic literature search strategy and the incorporation of grey literature known to the authorship team. We canvass key policy instruments from each country to outline key approaches to the identification of candidate drugs for disinvestment assessment (passive approaches vs. more active approaches); methods of disinvestment and value-based purchasing (de-listing, restricting treatment, price or reimbursement rate reductions, encouraging generic prescribing); lessons learnt from the various approaches; the potential role of coverage with evidence development; and the need for careful stakeholder management. Dedicated sections are provided with detailed coverage of policy approaches (with drug examples) from each country. Historically, countries have relied on 'passive disinvestment'; however, due to (1) the availability of new cost-effectiveness evidence, or (2) 'leakage' in drug utilisation, or (3) market failure in terms of price competition, there is an increasing focus towards 'active disinvestment'. Isolating low-value drugs that would create headroom for innovative new products to enter the market is also motivating disinvestment efforts by multiple parties, including industry. Historically, disinvestment has mainly taken the form of price reductions, especially when market failures are perceived to exist, and restricting treatment to subpopulations, particularly when a drug is no longer considered value for money. There is considerable experimentation internationally in mechanisms for disinvestment and the opportunity for countries to learn from each other. Ongoing evaluation of disinvestment strategies is essential, and ought to be reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

Evidence informed decision making: the use of "colloquial evidence" at nice.

OBJECTIVES: Colloquial evidence (CE) has been described as the informal evidence that helps provide context to other forms of evidence in guidance development. Despite challenges around quality, and the potential biases, the use of CE is becoming increasingly important in assessments where scientific literature is sparse and to also capture the experience of all stakeholders in discussions, including that of experts and patients. We aimed to ascertain how CE was being used at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). METHODS: Relevant data corresponding to the use of CE was extracted from all NICE technical and process manuals by two reviewers and quality assured and analyzed by a third reviewer. This was considered in light of the results of a focused literature review and a combined checklist for quality assessment was developed. RESULTS: At NICE, CE is utilised across all guidance producing programmes and at all stages of development. CE could range from information from experts and patient/carers, grey literature (including evidence from websites and policy reports) and testimony from stakeholders through consultation. Six tools for critical appraisal of CE were available from the literature and a combined best practice checklist has been proposed. CONCLUSIONS: As decisions often need to be made in areas where there is a lack of published scientific evidence, CE is employed. Therefore to ensure its appropriateness the development of a validated CE data quality check-list to assist decision makers is essential and further research in this area is a priority.

Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Despite international agreement that stopping low value practices will increase efficiency, identifying them is difficult and controversial. Opponents of centralized lists of low value practices stress that the actual problem is inappropriate low value use, and better targeting and implementation of treatment thresholds is needed. Our objective was to use Cochrane Reviews to identify low value practices to support local disinvestment decisions. METHODS: New or updated reviews were included if the authors concluded that the uncertain effectiveness of an intervention meant it should only be used in research, or that it was ineffective or harmful and should not be used. The reviews go through a production and quality assurance process, and are published as 'Cochrane Quality and Productivity topics' through the NHS Evidence website (http://www.library.nhs.uk/qipp/). RESULTS: Over a six-month period, 65 Cochrane reviews were processed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Of these, 28 identified potentially low value practices in the UK context. This was primarily due to a lack of randomized evidence of effectiveness, rather than robust evidence of a lack of effectiveness, or evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying low-value health care practices for local disinvestment (total or partial) is both practically and politically challenging, yet it is necessary to manage health budgets. This project identified that Cochrane Reviews can potentially identify low value health care practices. However, each review has to be reinterpreted for the UK context and additional analysis has to be undertaken to facilitate local implementation. Recommendations to improve the usability of systematic reviews are made.