Healthcare decision making, including regulatory and reimbursement decisions, is based on uncertain assessments of clinical and economic value. This arises from the evidence supporting those assessments being uncertain, incomplete, or even absent. Qualitative, structured expert elicitation (SEE) is a valuable tool for extracting expert knowledge about an uncertain quantity and formulating that knowledge as a probability distribution. This creates a useful input to decision modeling and support, particularly in areas with limited evidence, such as advanced therapy products, precision medicine, rare diagnoses, and other areas with high uncertainty.

Structured SEE protocols are used to improve the transparency, accuracy, and consistency of quantitative judgments from experts, limiting the effect of heuristics and biases. This task force report introduces 5 commonly used protocols for SEE (Sheffield elicitation framework; modified Delphi method; Cooke’s classical method; investigate, discuss, estimate, aggregate protocol; and the Medical Research Council reference protocol). It describes the common elements of SEE, discusses how these protocols differ in their implementation of those elements and illustrates the use of the protocols.

The report then reviews the relevant constraints on implementing SEE within the context of healthcare decision making and considers the strengths and weaknesses of these protocols in light of those considerations. Because this is an introductory report on an emerging topic, specific recommendations on practice are not made. However, there are broad recommendations based on the suitability of the different protocols in various decision contexts. The report concludes with recommendations for further research to better guide future practice.@en

The increase of multidrug resistance and resistance to last-line antibiotics is a major global public health threat. Although surveillance programs provide useful current and historical information on the scale of the problem, the future emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance is uncertain, and quantifying this uncertainty is crucial for guiding decisions about investment in antibiotics and resistance control strategies. Mathematical and statistical models capable of projecting future rates are challenged by the paucity of data and the complexity of the emergence and spread of resistance, but experts have relevant knowledge. We use the Classical Model of structured expert judgment to elicit projections with uncertainty bounds of resistance rates through 2026 for nine pathogen-antibiotic pairs in four European countries and empirically validate the assessments against data on a set of calibration questions. The performance-weighted combination of experts in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom projected that resistance for five pairs on the World Health Organization’s priority pathogens list (E. coli and K. pneumoniae resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems and MRSA) would remain below 50% in 2026. In Italy, although upper bounds of 90% credible ranges exceed 50% resistance for some pairs, the medians suggest Italy will sustain or improve its current rates. We compare these expert projections to statistical forecasts based on historical data from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net). Results from the statistical models differ from each other and from the judgmental forecasts in many cases. The judgmental forecasts include information from the experts about the impact of current and future shifts in infection control, antibiotic usage, and other factors that cannot be easily captured in statistical forecasts, demonstrating the potential of structured expert judgment as a tool for better understanding the uncertainty about future antibiotic resistance.@en