Abstract
BackgroundExpert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs.MethodsAn Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses.General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms.ResultsFifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable.ConclusionsEXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required.
Highlights
Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments
Recruiting Recruitment lasted from April to November 2014, and 18 General practitioner (GP) agreed to take part in the study
Some participants commented that this might be because official channels were saturated with various requests and many GPs would ignore messages not directly related to their activity
Summary
Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments (HTAs). In the context of HTA, we define expert elicitation as the process of a subject expert specifying a quantity of interest and associated uncertainty around it, which can be encoded as a probability distribution [2]. Motivational biases may include group thinking (when the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational outcome), misinterpretation, Grigore et al BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2017) 17:131 wishful thinking, impression management (experts displaying high confidence to protect their public image despite having little actual knowledge on the topic) [5], and experts with the best exposure to the relevant topic wanting to formulate opinions to influence the outcome, irrespective of their true belief [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
