Abstract
Background This study follows structured frameworks to assess the internal and external validity of a decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness of approaches to implement a risk-stratified national breast screening programme (risk-NBSP) in the United Kingdom (UK).
Methods A pre-defined set of steps were used to conduct the process of validation of a published decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-NBSP (UK healthcare perspective; lifetime horizon; costs (£; 2019). Internal validation was assessed in terms of: descriptive validity; technical validity; face validity. External validation was assessed in terms of: operational validation; convergent validity (or corroboration); predictive validity.
Results The results outline the findings of each step of internal and external validation. The positive aspects of the model in meeting internal validation requirements are shown. The limitations of MANC-RISK-SCREEN are described.
Conclusion Following a transparent and structured validation process, MANC-RISK-SCREEN has been shown to have good internal validity and satisfactory external validity. We suggest that MANC-RISK-SCREEN provides a robust decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of risk-NBSP from the UK perspective.
Key points for decision makers There are emerging suggested adaptations to national screening programmes, such as the introduction of risk-stratification to the national breast screening programme (risk-NBSP) in the United Kingdom (UK)
There is a key role for the use of decision-analytic model-based analysis of healthcare interventions, such as a risk-NBSP, that are difficult to evaluate in trials due to the large number of participants required and very long follow up period required.
This study follows structured frameworks to assess the internal and external validity of a decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness of a potential risk-NBSP. The decision-analytic model is shown to perform to a satisfactory level, with possible limitations described clearly, to inform resource allocation decisions from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding information This work was funded as part of the National Institute for Health Research PROCAS-2 Programme Grant, (Ref: RP-PG-1214-20016). This work was also supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection, an alliance between Cancer Research UK, Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London and The University of Manchester. The views expressed are those of the authors of this manuscript and not the funding bodies.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Additional Information
Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval was not required for this study that used existing published data and information.
Data and code availability The R code for the decision-analytic model structure is publicly available in a GitHub repository: https://github.com/stuwrighthealthecon/MANC-RISK-SCREEN
Competing interests SW, EG, GR, AD, and KP have no competing interests to declare.
Funding information This work was funded as part of the National Institute for Health Research PROCAS-2 Programme Grant, (Ref: RP-PG-1214-20016). This work was also supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection, an alliance between Cancer Research UK, Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London and The University of Manchester. The views expressed are those of the authors of this manuscript and not the funding bodies.
Data Availability
The R code for the decision-analytic model structure is publicly available in a GitHub repository: https://github.com/stuwrighthealthecon/MANC-RISK-SCREEN
