Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2403.17798

Ethical considerations when planning, implementing and releasing health economic model software: a new proposal

Abstract

Most health economic analyses are undertaken with the aid of computers. However, the research ethics of implementing health economic models as software (or computational health economic models (CHEMs)) are poorly understood. We propose that developers and funders of CHEMs should adhere to research ethics principles and pursue the goals of: (i) socially acceptable user requirements and design specifications; (ii) fit for purpose implementations; and (iii) socially beneficial post-release use. We further propose that a transparent (T), reusable (R) and updatable (U) CHEM is suggestive of a project team that has largely met these goals. We propose six criteria for assessing TRU CHEMs: (T1) software files are publicly available; (T2) developer contributions and judgments on appropriate use are easily identified; (R1) programming practices facilitate independent reuse of model components; (R2) licenses permit reuse and derivative works; (U1) maintenance infrastructure is in place; and (U2) releases are systematically retested and deprecated. Few existing CHEMs would meet all TRU criteria. Addressing these limitations will require the development of new and updated good practice guidelines and investments by governments and other research funders in enabling infrastructure and human capital.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Matthew P Hamilton, Caroline Gao, Jonathan Karnon, Luis Salvador-Carulla, Sue M Cotton, Cathrine Mihalopoulos. 2024-03-25. Ethical considerations when planning, implementing and releasing health economic model software: a new proposal. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17798

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN