Reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making
A guideline that helps health-care decision-makers collect and use expert opinions in a structured and reliable way when evidence is uncertain. It supports consistent and transparent use of expert judgment, especially in cost-effectiveness assessments.
At a glance
Use when
When evidence is sparse or uncertain (e.g., early-stage technologies, rare diseases); during health technology assessment; when quantitative inputs are needed for decision models
Avoid when
When robust empirical data are available; when expert independence cannot be maintained; in highly politicized contexts where bias may dominate
Inputs
Expert opinion on uncertain parameters in health-care interventions, particularly in cost-effectiveness analyses
Outputs
Quantitative estimates of expert beliefs, including uncertainty distributions for model inputs or parameters
How it works
This reference protocol was developed through a mixed-methods study involving systematic and targeted reviews, experimental work, and narrative synthesis. It provides methodological guidance for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making, emphasizing fitness for purpose, individual expert uncertainty, and empirical justification. Key components include selection of substantively skilled experts, elicitation of observable quantities, individual belief elicitation, and approaches to fitting and aggregation. The protocol is designed for use in health technology assessment but includes flexibility for adaptation in local or early-technology contexts.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Costs & Economic Evaluation, Organisational aspects
- Assumptions
- Experts possess relevant substantive knowledge; expert judgment can improve decision-making under uncertainty; individual elicitation reduces bias; observable quantities improve calibration
- Strengths
- Flexible and adaptable to different contexts; grounded in principles of fitness for purpose and transparency; supports individual uncertainty expression; informed by mixed-methods evidence synthesis
- Limitations
- Limited empirical evidence supporting many methodological choices; some decisions lack strong justification; may require adaptation when expert access is limited or group input is needed
- Also known as
- Structured Expert Elicitation Reference Protocol, SEEP Reference Protocol
Questions this answers
- › How should experts be selected for elicitation in health-care decision-making?
- › What parameters should be elicited from experts and how?
- › How can individual expert uncertainty be captured and expressed?
- › Which methods are preferred for aggregating expert judgments?
- › When might group elicitation be necessary despite a preference for individual elicitation?
- › How can structured expert elicitation be adapted for different decision-making contexts (e.g., local level, early technologies)?
References & sources
Similar by meaning
Beta record. Generated from the primary source via AI extraction and independent audit, pending final human review.