MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6999776560

Development of a value assessment framework for health technology assessment and coverage decision making in China

2023· dissertation· en· W6999776560 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsHealth technologyGovernment (linguistics)NegotiationValue (mathematics)Process (computing)Health careChinaDecision-making
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value assessment framework (VAF) has become a promising tool for assessing the value of health technologies and informing coverage decision making. Most VAFs have been developed for high-income countries and are insufficient for various contexts given. There were limited patient and public engagement in the framework development process and the uncertainty in coverage decision making was not accommodated. This doctoral thesis aimed to develop a VAF that involved multiple stakeholders to support transparent and consistent coverage decision making in China. This thesis begins with an overview of coverage decision making and health technology assessment (HTA), and the emergence and application of VAF in this field in recent years. This thesis subsequently presents a systematic review of existing VAFs that investigated how value is defined and measured in healthcare and summarized the methods of framework development in existing VAFs. Then, this thesis presents a qualitative description study informed by the systematic review and the principles of qualitative description (QD). Through open-ended semi-structured interviews with 34 Chinese stakeholders, as well as a review and analysis of 16 publicly available government documents related to HTA and coverage policies in China, 12 value attributes were identified for the development of a VAF in China. Then, this thesis includes an online factorial survey among 365 Chinese stakeholders to generate value scoring algorithms. With the developed VAF, the value of a health technology under assessment and its probabilities of entering negotiation or being covered by the national medical insurance in China for diseases with different levels of severity, can be estimated. This thesis ends with a discussion of the key findings, limitations, and implications of this program of research and presents our perspectives on challenges and future directions in the field of VAF.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→