Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?
Christopher Sampson (),
Edward C. F. Wilson and
Additional contact information
Renée Arnold: Arnold Consultancy & Technology, LLC
Stirling Bryan: University of British Columbia
Philip Clarke: University of Oxford
Sean Ekins: Collaborations Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Anthony Hatswell: Delta Hat
Neil Hawkins: University of Glasgow
Sue Langham: Maverex Limited
Deborah Marshall: University of Calgary
Mohsen Sadatsafavi: University of British Columbia
Will Sullivan: BresMed Health Solutions
Edward C. F. Wilson: University of East Anglia
Tim Wrightson: Adis International Limited
PharmacoEconomics, 2019, vol. 37, issue 11, No 8, 1355-1369
Abstract Transparency in decision modelling is an evolving concept. Recently, discussion has moved from reporting standards to open-source implementation of decision analytic models. However, in the debate about the supposed advantages and disadvantages of greater transparency, there is a lack of definition. The purpose of this article is not to present a case for or against transparency, but rather to provide a more nuanced understanding of what transparency means in the context of decision modelling and how it could be addressed. To this end, we review and summarise the discourse to date, drawing on our collective experience. We outline a taxonomy of the different manifestations of transparency, including reporting standards, reference models, collaboration, model registration, peer review and open-source modelling. Further, we map out the role and incentives for the various stakeholders, including industry, research organisations, publishers and decision makers. We outline the anticipated advantages and disadvantages of greater transparency with respect to each manifestation, as well as the perceived barriers and facilitators to greater transparency. These are considered with respect to the different stakeholders and with reference to issues including intellectual property, legality, standards, quality assurance, code integrity, health technology assessment processes, incentives, funding, software, access and deployment options, data protection and stakeholder engagement. For each manifestation of transparency, we discuss the ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘who’ and ‘how’. Specifically, their meaning, why the community might (or might not) wish to embrace them, whose engagement as stakeholders is required and how relevant objectives might be realised. We identify current initiatives aimed to improve transparency to exemplify efforts in current practice and for the future.
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00819-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00819-z
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell
More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().