Abstract
Background There is no definitive cure for asthma; as such, prevention remains a major goal. Decision-analytic models are routinely used to evaluate the value-for-money proposition of interventions. Following best practice standards in decision-analytic modeling, the objective of this study was to solicit expert opinion to develop a concept map for a policy model for primary prevention of asthma.
Methods We reviewed currently available decision-analytic models for asthma prevention. A steering committee of economic modelers, allergists, and respirologists was then convened to draft a conceptual model of pediatric asthma. A modified Delphi method was followed to define the context of the problem at hand (evaluation of asthma prevention strategies) and develop the concept map of the model.
Results Consensus was achieved after three rounds of discussions, followed by concealed voting. In the final conceptual model, asthma diagnosis was based on three domains of lung function, atopy, and their symptoms. The panel recommended several markers for each domain. These domains were in turn affected by several risk factors. The panel clustered all risk factors under three groups of ‘patient characteristic’, ‘family history’, and ‘environmental factors’. To be capable of modeling the interplay among risk factors, the panel recommended the use of microsimulation, with an open-population approach that would enable modeling phased implementation and gradual and incomplete uptake of the intervention.
Conclusions Economic evaluation of childhood interventions for preventing asthma will require modeling of several co-dependent risk factors and multiple domains that affect the diagnosis. The conceptual model can inform the development and validation of a policy model for childhood asthma prevention.
Funding Genome Canada Large-Scale Applied Research Project
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Genome Canada Large-Scale Applied Research Project
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
University of British Columbia Human Ethics Board (H17-00938).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Contribution Statement: MS, SET, and PS conceived the study. MS, SET, PS, and AA drafted the initial concept map as the steering committee. SET, PS, MRS, ABB, PJM, and TM were the members of the Delphi panel and provided structured feedback in two rounds of surveys and the consensus meeting. AA and MS designed the survey. AA analyzed the data, conducted the systematic review, and drafted the manuscript. TYL contributed to the systematic review. All authors revised the manuscript critically and approved the final version to be published.
Conflict of interest: None.
Funding source: Genome Canada Large-Scale Applied Research Project (#274CHI)
Typos fixed.
Data Availability
All survey data is available upon request.
