Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Frønsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462311000262.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi); 2006. Health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://www.htaglossary.net [Accessed 27 Jun 2023].

O’Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment: lessons learned from around the world: an overview. Value Health. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00550.x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kunst N, Jackson C, Heath A. Chapter 1. Health economic modelling. In: Value of information for health economic evaluations. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2023. p. 1–371.

Google Scholar 

Briggs A, Schulpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2006. p. 1–256.

Book  Google Scholar 

Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. Redmond; 2019. https://office.microsoft.com/excel [Accessed 14 Aug 2023].

Hollman C, Paulden M, Pechlivanoglou P, McCabe C. A comparison of four software programs for implementing decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(8):817–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0510-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

TreeAge Pro. TreeAge Software, LLC. Williamstown; 2020. http://www.treeage.com [Accessed 14 Sep 2023].

Incerti D, Thom H, Baio G, Jansen JP. R you still using Excel? The advantages of modern software tools for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2019;22(5):575–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.003.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Menn P, Holle R. Comparing three software tools for implementing Markov models for health economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):745–53. https://doi.org/10.2165/11313760-000000000-00000.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tosh J, Wailoo A. Review of software for decision modelling. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2008. pp. 1–18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425836/ [Accessed 26 Jul 2023].

Baio G, Heath A. When simple becomes complicated: why Excel should lose its place at the top table. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2017;4(1): 5000247. https://doi.org/10.5301/grhta.5000247.

Article  Google Scholar 

Feenstra T, Corro-Ramos I, Hamerlijnck D, van Voorn G, Ghabri S. Four aspects affecting health economic decision models and their validation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:241–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01110-w.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sampson CJ, Arnold R, Bryan S, Clarke P, Ekins S, Hatswell A, et al. Transparency in decision modelling: what, why, who and how? Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:1355–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00819-z.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hart R, Burns D, Ramaekers B, Ren S, Gladwell D, Sullivan W, et al. R and Shiny for cost-effectiveness analyses: why and when? A hypothetical case study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(7):765–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00903-9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Alarid-Escudero F, Krijkamp EM, Pechlivanoglou P, Jalal H, Kao SYZ, Yang A, et al. A need for change! A coding framework for improving transparency in decision modeling. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(11):1329–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00837-x.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

R Development Core Team. The R Project for statistical computing; 2021. https://www.r-project.org/ [Accessed 11 Aug 2023].

Jalal H, Pechlivanoglou P, Krijkamp E, Alarid-Escudero F, Enns E, Hunink MGM. An overview of R in health decision sciences. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(7):735–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16686559.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pechlivanoglou P, Enns E, Alarid-Escudero F, Krijkamp E, Jalal H, Yang A, et al. Decision Analysis in R for Technologies in Health (DARTH) Group; 2023. Learn with us. Upcoming workshops and short courses. http://darthworkgroup.com/workshops/ [Accessed 17 Sep 2023].

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR); 2023. HEOR education at ISPOR. https://www.ispor.org/education-training [Accessed 17 Sep 2023].

Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative; 2023. THETA rounds. https://theta.utoronto.ca/theta-rounds [Accessed 17 Sep 2023].

Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency (CADTH). Procedures for the CADTH common drug review and interim plasma protein product review; 2020. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/process/Procedure_and_Guidelines_for_CADTH_CDR.pdf [Accessed 28 Jul 2023].

Dew K. A health researcher’s guide to qualitative methodologies. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31(5):433–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00114.x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bouma GD, Ling R, Wilkinson L. The research process. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 1–304.

Google Scholar 

Shaikh M, Cornford T. Navigating open source adoption in the public sector. In: 18th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS); 2012. pp. 2564–71. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/EGovernment/15. Accessed 29 Mar 2024.

Coleman P. In-depth interviewing as a research method in healthcare practice and education: value, limitations and considerations. Int J Caring Sci. 2019;12(3):1879.

Google Scholar 

Sage Publications. Analyzing focus group results; 2015. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/65005_book_item_65005.pdf [Accessed 29 Mar 2024].

Hennink MM, Leavy P. Writing focus group results. Understanding focus group discussions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.003.0004.

Book  Google Scholar 

Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd, SAGE Research Methods Foundations; 2019.

Google Scholar 

Khusid A. MIRO. RealtimeBoard, Inc.; 2011. https://miro.com [Accessed 27 Jun 2023].

Naylor NR, Williams J, Green N, Lamrock F, Briggs A. Extensions of health economic evaluations in R for Microsoft Excel users: a tutorial for incorporating heterogeneity and conducting value of information analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(1):21–32.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Green N, Lamrock F, Naylor N, Williams J, Briggs A. Health economic evaluation using Markov models in R for Microsoft Excel users: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01199-7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar