Search

Background Many children stand to benefit from being asthma-free for life with primary (i.e., prenatally started) prevention addressing one environmental exposure in a unifaceted (UF) approach or at least two in a multifaceted (MF) approach. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention programmes for Dutch children in a decision-analytic framework. Methods A decision-analytic tree model analysing healthcare costs and asthma cases prevented was developed to compare usual care (UC) with two UF and three MF programmes on the primary prevention of asthma amongst children. Programmes were evaluated through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. Decision and parameter uncertainty were subjected to value-of-information analyses. Results The current UC and one of three MF programmes dominated the other alternatives. The MF programme was more costly but also more effective than UC at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)8,209.20/additional asthma case prevented. The value of perfect information to reduce uncertainty was (sic)291.6M at its lowest. Most of the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness threshold was attributable to the probability and cost estimates for low-risk children. Conclusion This study supports the feasibility of a structured programme that simultaneously addresses exposure to house dust mites, pet dander, environmental tobacco, and breast-feeding as a cost-effective alternative to UC in the primary prevention of asthma amongst children.

Contains fulltext : 96371.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Given the rising number of asthma cases and the increasing costs of health care, prevention may be the best cure. Decisions regarding the implementation of prevention programmes in general and choosing between unifaceted and multifaceted strategies in particular are urgently needed. Existing trials on the primary prevention of asthma are, however, insufficient on their own to inform the decision of stakeholders regarding the cost-effectiveness of such prevention strategies. Decision analytic modelling synthesises available data for the cost-effectiveness evaluation of strategies in an explicit manner. Published reports on model development should provide the detail and transparency required to increase the acceptability of cost-effectiveness modelling. But, detail on the explicit steps and the involvement of experts in structuring a model is often unevenly reported. In this paper, we describe a procedure to structure and validate a model for the primary prevention of asthma in children. METHODS: An expert panel was convened for round-table discussions to frame the cost-effectiveness research question and to select and structure a model. The model's structural validity, which indicates how well a model reflects the reality, was determined through descriptive and parallel validation. Descriptive validation was performed with the experts. Parallel validation qualitatively compared similarity between other published models with different decision problems. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary input of experts helped to develop a decision-tree structure which compares the current situation with screening and prevention. The prevention was further divided between multifaceted and unifaceted approaches to analyse the differences. The clinical outcome was diagnosis of asthma. No similar model was found in the literature discussing the same decision problem. Structural validity in terms of descriptive validity was achieved with the experts and was supported by parallel validation. CONCLUSIONS: A decision-tree model developed with experts in round-table discussions benefits from a systematic and transparent approach and the multidisciplinary contributions of the experts. Parallel validation provides a feasible alternative to validating novel models. The process of structuring and validating a model presented in this paper could be a useful guide to increase transparency, credibility, and acceptability of (future, novel) models when experts are involved.