Background: A trade-off exists between building confidence in health-economic (HE) decision models and the use of scarce resources. We aimed to create a practical tool providing model users with a structured view into the validation status of HE decision models, to address this trade-off. Methods: A Delphi panel was organized, and was completed by a workshop during an international conference. The proposed tool was constructed iteratively based on comments from, and the discussion amongst, panellists. During the Delphi process, comments were solicited on the importance and feasibility of possible validation techniques for modellers, their relevance for decision makers, and the overall structure and formulation in the tool. Results: The panel consisted of 47 experts in HE modelling and HE decision making from various professional and international backgrounds. In addition, 50 discussants actively engaged in the discussion at the conference workshop and returned 19 questionnaires with additional comments. The final version consists of 13 items covering all relevant aspects of HE decision models: the conceptual model, the input data, the implemented software program, and the model outcomes. Conclusions: Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) is a validation-assessment tool in which model developers report in a systematic way both on validation efforts performed and on their outcomes. Subsequently, model users can establish whether confidence in the model is justified or whether additional validation efforts should be undertaken. In this way, AdViSHE enhances transparency of the validation status of HE models and supports efficient model validation.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0327-2, hdl.handle.net/1765/88447
Journal PharmacoEconomics
Citation
Vemer, P, Corro Ramos, I, van Voorn, G.A.K, Al, M.J, & Feenstra, T.L. (2016). AdViSHE: A Validation-Assessment Tool of Health-Economic Models for Decision Makers and Model Users. PharmacoEconomics, 34(4), 349–361. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0327-2