Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?

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.

A randomised controlled trial of laser scanning and casting for the construction of ankle-foot orthoses.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional laser scanning has been used for patient measurement for cranial helmets and spinal braces. Ankle-foot orthoses are commonly prescribed for children with orthopaedic conditions. This trial sought to compare ankle-foot orthoses produced by laser scanning or traditional plaster casting. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of using laser scanning to produce ankle-foot orthoses. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with blinding of orthotists and patients to the construction technique used. METHODS: A randomised double-blind trial comparing fabrication of ankle-foot orthoses from casts or laser scans. RESULTS: The time spent in the rectification and moulding of scanned ankle-foot orthoses was around 50% less than for cast ankle-foot orthoses. A non-significant increase of 9 days was seen in the time to delivery to the patient for laser scanning with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing. There was a higher incidence of problems with the scan-based ankle-foot orthoses at delivery of the device, but no difference in how long the ankle-foot orthoses lasted. Costs associated with laser scanning were not significantly different from traditional methods of ankle-foot orthosis manufacture. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional casting techniques, laser scan-based ankle-foot orthosis manufacture did not significantly improve either the quality of the final product or the time to delivery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are a common requirement for chronic neurological conditions during childhood. Improved efficiency of provision of AFOs would benefit children and families by reducing the delay in provision of devices and would benefit the health service by making best use of valuable orthotist time.

Cost implications of treatment non-completion in a forensic personality disorder service.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of individuals admitted to specialist secure hospital services for treatment of personality disorder do not complete treatment. Non-completion has been associated with poorer treatment outcomes and increased rates of recidivism and hospital readmission, when compared with individuals who do complete treatment or who do not receive treatment at all. AIMS: In this study, we sought to determine the economic consequences of non-completion of treatment, using case study data from a secure hospital sample. Both health and criminal justice service perspectives were taken into account. METHODS: Data were collected from a medium secure hospital personality disorder unit. A probabilistic decision-analytic model was constructed, using a Markov cohort simulation with 10,000 iterations. The expected cost differential between those who do and those who do not complete treatment was estimated, as was the probability of a cost differential over a 10-year post-admission time horizon. RESULTS: On average, in the first 10 years following admission, those who do not complete treatment go on to incur £52,000 more in costs to the National Health Service and criminal justice system than those who complete treatment. The model estimates that the probability that non-completers incur greater costs than completers is 78%. CONCLUSION: It is possible that an improvement in treatment completion rates in secure hospital personality disorder units would lead to some cost savings. This might be achievable through better selection into treatment or improved strategies for engagement and retention. Our study highlights a financial cost to society of individuals discharged from secure hospital care when incompletely treated. We suggest that it could, therefore, be useful for secure hospitals to introduce routine monitoring of treatment completion.

Protocol Evaluating the effectiveness of a school-based group programme for parents of children at risk of ADHD: the 'PArents, Teachers and CHildren WORKing Together (PATCHWORK)' cluster RCT protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Early intervention for childhood behavioural problems may help improve health and educational outcomes in affected children and reduce the likelihood of developing additional difficulties. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a common childhood behavioural disorder, recommend a stepped care approach for the identification and management of these problems. Parents of children with high levels of hyperactivity and inattention may benefit from intervention programmes involving behavioural management and educational approaches. Such interventions may be further enhanced by providing training and feedback to teachers about the strategies discussed with parents. In relation to children with high levels of hyperactivity, impulsiveness and inattention, we aim to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a parenting programme (with and without an accompanying teacher session) in primary schools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This clustered (at the level of school) randomised controlled trial (RCT) focuses on children in their first four school years (ages 4-8 years) in the East Midlands area of England. Parents will complete a screening measure, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, to identify children with high levels of hyperactivity/inattention. Three approaches to reducing hyperactivity and attention problems will be compared: a group programme for parents (parent-only intervention); group programme for parents combined with feedback to teachers (combined intervention); and waiting list control (no intervention). Differences between arms on the short version of Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales Revised will be compared and also used to inform the sample size required for a future definitive cluster RCT. A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The outcomes of this study will inform policy makers about the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of delivering targeted behavioural interventions within a school setting. The study has received ethical approval from the University of Nottingham Medical School Ethics Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN87634685.