Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/22228
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorThabane, Lehana-
dc.contributor.authorDiaz-Martinez, Juan Pablo-
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-17T12:45:23Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-17T12:45:23Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/22228-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Copula methods have been proposed as a way of modeling dependence between random variables because it lies in the flexibility of the assumption on marginals. As previous authors stated, "A copula is a function which joins or โ€œcouplesโ€ a multivariate distribution function to its one-dimensional marginal distribution functions. Given that cost and effectiveness are often related to each other and therefore they show statistical dependence, the use of copulas to handle uncertainty caused by sampling variation could be potentially useful when cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are performed using patient-level data. The objective of this study was to empirically compare various copula distributions with two traditional methods, namely, the bootstrapping approach and the Bayesian approach assuming that incremental cost and LYs gained are bivariate normally distributed. Methods: The patient-level data from a previously published observational study were analyzed using four copula distributions: independent, Farlie-Gumbel-Morgenstern (FGM), Frank and Clayton copulas. Using the results from the traditional methods previously published, models were compared in terms of incremental cost, incremental life years (LYs) gained and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) based on the net monetary benefit (NMB). Results: Using the traditional methods provided similar results. The most pronounced impact was the improvement in precision given that the confidence intervals were so much narrower for the copulas methods in comparison to the traditional methods. Consequently, the probability of being optimal derived from the Frank and Clayton copulas were close to 1.0 at a willingness to pay (๐œ†) of CA$20,000. By contrast, the traditional methods were optimal for a ๐œ† of $100,000 CAD. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstreate the potential impact and importance of copulas in patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis. This approach could be particularly important in those situations where the data suggests some kind of dependence and some restrictions on the marginals, as observed in our case study.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectcost-effectiveness, copulasen_US
dc.titleThe use of copulas in cost-effectiveness analysisen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentHealth Research Methodologyen_US
dc.description.degreetypeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeMaster of Science (MSc)en_US
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
DiazMartinez_Juan_Pablo_finalsubmission201709_MSc.pdf
Access is allowed from: 2018-09-08
1.46 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue