Author(s)
Jahn B1, Conrads-Frank A2, Sroczynski G2, Rochau U3, Zauner G4, Bundo M2, Gyimesi M5, Endel G6, Popper N4, Siebert U7
1Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT), Hall i.T., Austria, 2UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Hall i.T., Austria, 3UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and HTA, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and HTA/ ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Medicine, Hall i.T./ Innsbruck, Austria, 4dwh GmbH, Vienna, Austria, 5Austrian Public Health Institute, Vienna, Austria, 6Main Association of Austrian Social Insurance Institutions, Vienna, Austria, 7and Director, Division for HTA, ONCOTYROL – Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall i.T., Austria
OBJECTIVES: To support decision making for health or social care policies and to improve access to medical innovations, population models (PM) have become a common tool that explicitly considers population dynamics. PM are applied for economic evaluations of specific treatments or public health interventions, predictions of demand for care or burden of disease. In our project DEXHELPP (Decision Support for Health Policy and Planning), we reconsider definitions of PM and focus on modelling techniques and methodological challenges. The goal of this systematic review is to increase the insight of health policy researchers in PM. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on PM, focusing on the development and application for health policy questions. We identified existing models, systematically extracted and summarized information in evidence tables and standardized narrative comparisons. We present goals, modelling techniques, general model characteristics/specifications, validation and advantages and shortcomings of chosen approaches. RESULTS: The term PM is not used consistently. It refers to both models applied to study the dynamics of a population and models investigating the impact of interventions on population level. PM consider open (dynamic) rather than closed cohorts. In general, populations can be projected into the future using micro- or macrosimulations, continuous or discrete time, and a modular structure allows studying several diseases and applications. Comprehensive PM are applied for several research questions, for example, in Canada (POHEM), Sweden (SESIM), Australia (APPSIM) or Austria (GEPOC) or by OECD/WHO (CDP). The identified models are often microsimulation models. Reported challenges are: data shortage, calibration, complexity and resource demands as well as quantifying uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several complex models with high quality, used for multiple research questions. The application of PM still requires better data, opportunities for data linkage and consistent reporting standards. Research should focus on continued methodological improvement for developing and applying complex population microsimulations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)
Code
PRM113
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Modeling and simulation
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders, Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders, Oncology, Respiratory-Related Disorders