Purpose: Measure the preferences of decision makers and researchers associated with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the recommended format for presenting health economics studies to the ACIP.
Methods: We conducted key informant interviews and an online survey of current ACIP work group members, and current and previous ACIP voting members, liaison representatives, and ex-officio members to understand preferences for health economics presentations. These preferences included the presentation of results and sensitivity analyses, the role of health economics studies in decision making, and strategies to improve guidelines for presenting health economics studies. Best-worst scaling was used to measure the relative value of seven attributes of health economics presentations in vaccine decision making.
Results: The best-worst scaling survey had a response rate of 51% (n = 93). Results showed that summary results were the most important attribute for decision making (mean importance score: 0.69) and intermediate outcomes and disaggregated results were least important (mean importance score: -0.71). Respondents without previous health economics experience assigned sensitivity analysis lower importance and relationship of the results to other studies higher importance than the experienced group (sensitivity analysis scores: -0.15 vs. 0.15 respectively; relationship of the results: 0.13 vs. -0.12 respectively). Key informant interviews identified areas for improvement to include additional information on the quality of the analysis and increased role for liaisons familiar with health economics.
Conclusion: Additional specificity in health economics presentations could allow for more effective presentations of evidence for vaccine decision making.
Keywords: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); Best-worst scaling; Health economics; Vaccine policy.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.