Co-designing a Structured Expert Elicitation with Clinicians to Enhance Health Care Decision Making in Exercise Oncology

Yufan Wang, Alexandra L. McCarthy and Haitham Tuffaha
Additional contact information
Yufan Wang: Centre for the Business and Economics of Health (CBEH), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Alexandra L. McCarthy: Faculty of Health, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Haitham Tuffaha: Centre for the Business and Economics of Health (CBEH), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

Medical Decision Making, 2025, vol. 45, issue 5, 602-613

Abstract: Background While structured expert elicitation (SEE) is gaining traction in health technology assessment in situations in which data are scarce, its application in practice remains limited. Co-designing a practical and fit-for-purpose SEE with experts could enhance its acceptability and feasibility in clinical research. Objectives An SEE was co-designed with clinicians to elicit expert opinions on 3 uncertain quantities of interest (QoIs) for a decision-analytic model in exercise oncology. Methods A series of co-design meetings was convened to design 6 elicitation stages. Individual elicitation was conducted using the variable interval method (VIM), via videoconferencing. Linear pooling was adopted to generate group estimates. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the elicitation exercise to gather the experts’ first-hand experience of the elicitation process and to identify areas for improvement. Qualitative data were transcribed and content analyzed. Results Twelve experts participated in the co-designed SEE. Three beta distributions were derived and estimated from the experts’ responses: the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular events of exercise for women who survived early-stage endometrial cancer (Mean: 0.362, SD: 0.15), the probability that a clinician would refer a patient to the exercise program (Mean: 0.457, SD: 0.218), and the probability that a cancer patient would use such a health service upon referral (Mean: 0.446, SD: 0.203). Most of the experts’ first-hand experience of the co-designed SEE was positive. The qualitative feedback highlighted critical aspects of the elicitation process that should be designed and executed with caution when targeting clinicians with no prior experience of SEE. Conclusions This is the first expert elicitation conducted in exercise oncology. Engaging diverse stakeholders through co-design meetings and incorporating qualitative feedback proved effective and practical in introducing expert elicitation into clinical research. Highlights Recent SEE guidelines aim to facilitate the conduct of expert elicitation in model-based economic evaluation, but its application in practice remains limited. Engaging experts in the design of SEE could enhance its acceptability and feasibility in clinical research. This is the first co-designed expert elicitation involving clinicians in the field of exercise oncology. This practical approach to conducting SEE could promote a wider adoption to inform health care policy decisions when the evidence is lacking or uncertain.

Keywords: expert elicitation; exercise oncology; co-design; economic evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251332967 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:5:p:602-613

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251332967

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().