Discrete event simulation (DES) is a form of computer-based modeling that provides an intuitive and flexible approach to representing complex systems. It has been used in a wide range of health care applications. Most early applications involved analyses of systems with constrained resources, where the general aim was to improve the organization of delivered services. More recently, DES has increasingly been applied to evaluate specific technologies in the context of health technology assessment. The aim of this article is to provide consensus-based guidelines on the application of DES in a health care setting, covering the range of issues to which DES can be applied. The article works through the different stages of the modeling process: structural development, parameter estimation, model implementation, model analysis, and representation and reporting. For each stage, a brief description is provided, followed by consideration of issues that are of particular relevance to the application of DES in a health care setting. Each section contains a number of best practice recommendations that were iterated among the authors, as well as the wider modeling task force.
CaroJJBriggsAHSiebertUKuntzKM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667–677.
2.
RobertsMRussellLBPaltielADChambersMMcEwanPKrahnM. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–689.
3.
SiebertUAlagozOBayoumiAM. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):690–700.
4.
PitmanRFismanDZaricGS. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–5. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):712–721.
5.
BriggsAHWeinsteinMCFenwickEALKarnonJSculpherMJPaltielAD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–732.
6.
EddyDMHollingworthWCaroJJTsevatJMcDonaldKMWongJB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–743.
7.
PiddM. Computer Simulation in Management Science. 5th ed.New York: John Wiley; 2004.
8.
JacobsonSHHallSNSwisherJR. Discrete-event simulation of health care systems, patient flow: reducing delay in healthcare delivery. Int Series Oper Res Manage Sci. 2006;91:211–52.
9.
FiggeMT. Stochastic discrete event simulation of germinal center reactions. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2005;71:1–9.
10.
ZandMSBriggsBJBoseAVoT. Discrete event modeling of CD4+ memory T cell generation. J Immunol. 2004;173:3763–72.
11.
CoelliFCFerreiraRBAlmeidaRMPereiraWC. Computer simulation and discrete-event models in the analysis of a mammography clinic patient flow. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2007;87:201–7.
12.
ComasMCastellsXHoffmeisterL. Discrete-event simulation applied to the analysis of waiting lists: evaluation of a prioritization system for cataract surgery. Value Health. 2008;11:1203–13.
13.
StahlJERattnerDWiklundRLesterJBeinfeldMGazelleGS. Reorganizing the system of care surrounding laparoscopic surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis using discrete-event simulation. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:461–71.
14.
ClarkDEHahnDRHallRWQuakerRE. Optimal location for a helicopter in a rural trauma system: prediction using discrete-event computer simulation. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:888–92.
15.
ChaseDRoderickPCooperKDaviesRQuinnTRafteryJ. Using simulation to estimate the cost effectiveness of improving ambulance and thrombolysis response times after myocardial infarction. Emerg Med J. 2006;23:67–72.
16.
SkolnikJMBarrettJSJayaramanBPatelDAdamsonPC. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:190–5.
17.
Barth-JonesDCAdamsALKoopmanJS. Monte Carlo simulation experiments for analysis of HIV vaccine effects and vaccine trial design. Winter Simulation Conference Proc. 2000;2:1985–94.
18.
GroothuisSvan MerodeGG. Discrete event simulation in the health policy and management program. Methods Inf Med. 2000;39:339–42.
19.
MarJArrospideAComasM. Budget impact analysis of thrombolysis for stroke in Spain: a discrete event simulation model. Value Health. 2010;13:69–76.
20.
StahlJEVacantiJPGazelleS. Assessing emerging technologies— the case of organ replacement technologies: volume, durability, cost. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:331–6.
21.
BrennanAChickSEDaviesR. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1295–310.
22.
StahlJE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:131–48.
23.
KarnonJBrownJ. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manage Sci. 1998;1:133–40.
24.
KarnonJCzoskiMCSmithKJBrandC. A hybrid cohort individual sampling natural history model of age-related macular degeneration: assessing the cost-effectiveness of screening using probabilistic calibration. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:304–16.
25.
ToshJCWailooAJScottDLDeightonCM. Cost-effectiveness of combination nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1593–600.
26.
CaroJJWardADenizHBO’BrienJAEhrethJL. Cost-benefit analysis of preventing sudden cardiac deaths with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus amiodarone. Value Health. 2007;10:13–22.
27.
JahnBPfeifferKPTheurlETarrideJEGoereeR. Capacity constraints and cost-effectiveness: a discrete event simulation for drug-eluting stents. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:16–28.
28.
CooperKDaviesRRoderickPChaseDRafteryJ. The development of a simulation model of the treatment of coronary heart disease. Health Care Manage Sci. 2002;5:259–67.
29.
AuchinclossAHDiez RouxAV. A new tool for epidemiology: the usefulness of dynamic-agent models in understanding place effects on health. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168:1–8.
30.
BorshchevAFilippoVA. From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. Presented at the 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 25–29 July 2004, Oxford, UK. p 25–29.
31.
CraneGKarnonJKymesSMetcalfeACassonRHillerJ. A discrete event simulation to optimise the allocation of constrained hospital resources for glaucoma. Value Health. 2011;14:A55.
32.
VanniTKarnonJMadanJ. Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach. Pharmacoeconomics2011;29:35–49.
33.
KarnonJVanniT. Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a comparison of alternative measures of goodness-of-fit, parameter search strategies, and convergence criteria. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:51–62.
GrimshawJMThomasREMacLennanG. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–72.
36.
BartonPJobanputraPWilsonJBryanSBurlsA. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–104.
37.
LawAMKeltonWD. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 4th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
38.
Duintjer TebbensRJThompsonKMHuninkMG. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of a dynamic economic evaluation model for vaccination programs. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:182–200.
39.
O’HaganAStevensonMMadanJ. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA. Health Econ. 2007;16:1009–23.
40.
StevensonMDOakleyJChilcottJB. Gaussian process modelling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modelling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of osteoporosis. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:89–100.
