STEER (Structured Expert Elicitation Resources)
STEER provides free, ready-to-use materials to help researchers and decision-makers collect expert opinions in a structured and transparent way when evidence is limited. It supports better health technology decisions by making expert input more reliable and accountable.
At a glance
Use when
Evidence is limited or uncertain,Regulatory or reimbursement decisions require expert input,Transparency in expert judgment is a priority,Rapid or robust decision-making processes are needed
Avoid when
Sufficient high-quality empirical evidence is available,Expert consensus is not relevant to the decision,Resources or expertise to conduct elicitation are unavailable
Inputs
Expert knowledge, decision context, study objectives, timeline and team capacity constraints
Outputs
Structured expert judgments, documented elicitation process, supporting materials for reporting and review
How it works
STEER (Structured Expert Elicitation Resources) is an open-access collection of resources designed to support structured expert elicitation (SEE) in health care decision making. Based on a published SEE protocol tailored to this context, STEER includes practical guidance, adaptable tools for designing bespoke SEE exercises, training materials for experts, administrative templates, and real-world examples. It covers all stages of SEE—from study design and expert recruitment to data collection, analysis, and reporting—while addressing logistical, contractual, and team capability requirements.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Patient and Social Aspects, Aspects Beyond HTA
- Assumptions
- Expert judgments can be systematically elicited and quantified; transparency improves decision quality; available experts are knowledgeable and willing to participate; organizational support exists for conducting elicitation
- Strengths
- Open access and comprehensive; improves transparency and reproducibility; reduces time and resource burden; adaptable to various decision contexts; includes training and real-world examples
- Limitations
- Dependent on availability and quality of expert input; may not fully replace empirical data; requires coordination and administrative effort; may need customization for specific jurisdictions or technologies
- Also known as
- Structured Expert Elicitation Resources
Questions this answers
- › How can expert judgments be systematically collected when evidence is limited?
- › What resources are available to implement structured expert elicitation in health care?
- › How can transparency and accountability be improved when using expert opinion in decision making?
- › What practical steps are needed to design and run a structured expert elicitation exercise?
- › How can teams be trained to participate in or conduct expert elicitation?
- › What are examples of successful expert elicitation applications in health technology assessment?
References & sources
Similar by meaning
- Reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making
- Structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes (NICE DSU TSD 26)
- Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes (EDP) framework
- Web-based Toolkit for European Collaboration on Evidence Generation
- Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes (EDP) — Part II: A Practical Guide
Beta record. Generated from the primary source via AI extraction and independent audit, pending final human review.