'Putting Knowledge in Power': learning and innovation in the British Army of the First World War

Learning is critical to battlefield success. $Ceteris$ $paribus$, victory becomes more likely when militaries adapt faster and more effectively than their opponents. This thesis examines the effectiveness of the British army’s process for learning and adaptation across six different operational theatres during the First World War. Using a series of case studies, it considers how the army shared knowledge, responded to change, and integrated newcomers. It finds that the army’s attitudes towards learning were more thoroughgoing than hitherto thought. With its pre-war ethos and increased fluidity in wartime, the army displayed organisational and cultural flexibility across all theatres, encouraging a culture of innovation through the promotion of informal learning and tactical diversity. In a broader sense, the thesis does three things. First, it moves beyond the standard Western Front narrative of learning in the First World War, offering a more rounded examination of the army’s experience. Secondly, it highlights the complexity of military learning, considering that which occurs institutionally, between formations, and between theatres. Finally, it reflects on the importance of an organisation’s ethos when faced with uncertainty. This thesis, therefore, offers a point of departure for future studies of traditionally bureaucratic institutions and their ability to learn and innovate

Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems

Previous studies have estimated that patients served by health systems accrue 59-98% of the value generated by new pharmaceuticals. This has led to questions about whether sufficient returns accrue to manufacturers to incentivize socially optimal levels of R&D. These studies have not, however, fully reflected the health opportunity costs imposed by payments for branded pharmaceuticals. We present a framework for estimating how the value generated by new branded pharmaceuticals is shared. We quantify value in net health effects and account for benefits and health opportunity costs in the patent period and post-patent period when generic/biosimilar products become available. We apply the framework to 12 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals and show that realized net health effects range from losses of 160%, to gains of 94%, of the potential net health benefits available. In many cases, even in the long run, the benefits of new medicines are not sufficient to offset the opportunity costs of payments to manufacturers, and approval is expected to reduce population health. This cannot be dynamically efficient as it incentivizes future innovation at prices which will also reduce population health. Further work should consider how to reflect these findings in reimbursement policies

The British Army, information management and the First World War revolution in military affairs

Information Management (IM) – the systematic ordering, processing and channelling of information within organisations – forms a critical component of modern military command and control systems. As a subject of scholarly enquiry, however, the history of military IM has been relatively poorly served. Employing new and under-utilised archival sources, this article takes the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) of the First World War as its case study and assesses the extent to which its IM system contributed to the emergence of the modern battlefield in 1918. It argues that the demands of fighting a modern war resulted in a general, but not universal, improvement in the BEF’s IM techniques, which in turn laid the groundwork, albeit in embryonic form, for the IM systems of modern armies. KEY WORDS: British Army, Information Management, First World War, Revolution in Military Affairs, Adaptatio

The impact of user charges on patient choice of healthcare services in Ireland

This research assesses the impact of user charges in the context of consumer choice to ascertain how user charges in healthcare impact on patient behaviour in Ireland. Quantitative data is collected from a subset of the population in walk-in Urgent Care Clinics and General Practitioner surgeries to assess their responses to user charges and whether user charges are a viable source of part-funding healthcare in Ireland. Examining the economic theories of Becker (1965) and Grossman (1972), the research has assessed the impact of user charges on patient choice in terms of affordability and accessibility in healthcare. The research examined a number of private, public and part-publicly funded healthcare services in Ireland for which varying levels of user charges exist depending on patients’ healthcare cover. Firstly, the study identifies the factors affecting patient choice of privately funded walk-in Urgent Care Clinics in Ireland given user charges. Secondly, the study assesses patient response to user charges for a mainly public or part-publicly provided service; prescription drugs. Finally, the study examines patients’ attitudes towards the potential application of user charges for both public and private healthcare services when patient choice is part of a time-money trade-off, convenience choice or preference choice. These services are valued in the context of user charges becoming more prevalent in healthcare systems over time. The results indicate that the impact of user charges on healthcare services vary according to socio-economic status. The study shows that user charges can disproportionately affect lower income groups and consequently lead to affordability and accessibility issues. However, when valuing the potential application of user charges for three healthcare services (MRI scans, blood tests and a branded over a generic prescription drug), this research indicates that lower income individuals are willing to pay for healthcare services, albeit at a lower user charge than higher income earners. Consequently, this study suggests that user charges may be a feasible source of part-financing Irish healthcare, once the user charge is determined from the patients’ perspective, taking into account their ability to pay

Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making : a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: Many decisions in health care aim to maximise health, requiring judgements about interventions that may have higher health effects but potentially incur additional costs (cost-effectiveness framework). The evidence used to establish cost-effectiveness is typically uncertain and it is important that this uncertainty is characterised. In situations in which evidence is uncertain, the experience of experts is essential. The process by which the beliefs of experts can be formally collected in a quantitative manner is structured expert elicitation. There is heterogeneity in the existing methodology used in health-care decision-making. A number of guidelines are available for structured expert elicitation; however, it is not clear if any of these are appropriate for health-care decision-making. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim was to establish a protocol for structured expert elicitation to inform health-care decision-making. The objectives are to (1) provide clarity on methods for collecting and using experts' judgements, (2) consider when alternative methodology may be required in particular contexts, (3) establish preferred approaches for elicitation on a range of parameters, (4) determine which elicitation methods allow experts to express uncertainty and (5) determine the usefulness of the reference protocol developed. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used: systemic review, targeted searches, experimental work and narrative synthesis. A review of the existing guidelines for structured expert elicitation was conducted. This identified the approaches used in existing guidelines (the 'choices') and determined if dominant approaches exist. Targeted review searches were conducted for selection of experts, level of elicitation, fitting and aggregation, assessing accuracy of judgements and heuristics and biases. To sift through the available choices, a set of principles that underpin the use of structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making was defined using evidence generated from the targeted searches, quantities to elicit experimental evidence and consideration of constraints in health-care decision-making. These principles, including fitness for purpose and reflecting individual expert uncertainty, were applied to the set of choices to establish a reference protocol. An applied evaluation of the developed reference protocol was also undertaken. RESULTS: For many elements of structured expert elicitation, there was a lack of consistency across the existing guidelines. In almost all choices, there was a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations, and in some circumstances the principles are unable to provide sufficient justification for discounting particular choices. It is possible to define reference methods for health technology assessment. These include a focus on gathering experts with substantive skills, eliciting observable quantities and individual elicitation of beliefs. Additional considerations are required for decision-makers outside health technology assessment, for example at a local level, or for early technologies. Access to experts may be limited and in some circumstances group discussion may be needed to generate a distribution. LIMITATIONS: The major limitation of the work conducted here lies not in the methods employed in the current work but in the evidence available from the wider literature relating to how appropriate particular methodological choices are. CONCLUSIONS: The reference protocol is flexible in many choices. This may be a useful characteristic, as it is possible to apply this reference protocol across different settings. Further applied studies, which use the choices specified in this reference protocol, are required. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This work was also funded by the Medical Research Council (reference MR/N028511/1)

Reference Case Methods for Expert Elicitation in Health Care Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: The evidence used to inform health care decision making (HCDM) is typically uncertain. In these situations, the experience of experts is essential to help decision makers reach a decision. Structured expert elicitation (referred to as elicitation) is a quantitative process to capture experts' beliefs. There is heterogeneity in the existing elicitation methodology used in HCDM, and it is not clear if existing guidelines are appropriate for use in this context. In this article, we seek to establish reference case methods for elicitation to inform HCDM. METHODS: We collated the methods available for elicitation using reviews and critique. In addition, we conducted controlled experiments to test the accuracy of alternative methods. We determined the suitability of the methods choices for use in HCDM according to a predefined set of principles for elicitation in HCDM, which we have also generated. We determined reference case methods for elicitation in HCDM for health technology assessment (HTA). RESULTS: In almost all methods choices available for elicitation, we found a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations. Despite this, it is possible to define reference case methods for HTA. The reference methods include a focus on gathering experts with substantive knowledge of the quantities being elicited as opposed to those trained in probability and statistics, eliciting quantities that the expert might observe directly, and individual elicitation of beliefs, rather than solely consensus methods. It is likely that there are additional considerations for decision makers in health care outside of HTA. CONCLUSIONS: The reference case developed here allows the use of different methods, depending on the decision-making setting. Further applied examples of elicitation methods would be useful. Experimental evidence comparing methods should be generated