Does it have to be bayesian? #19
Comments
|
Well --- Essentially, I do think this has been pointed out in several places (including the presentations, books and even in the help functions, I think). |
|
Awesome that is just as I thought. Do you think there is any space for making that clearer in the README/package description? Some people that I have spoken to have dismissed the package after just looking at those. Very much agree on the silent judgment aspect but perhaps easing people into the tool so that they are using it makes them more likely to switch (as they will see all the case studies + book using Bayesian methods). Talking to some HE last week it seemed like using Excel was still quite common. My thought was that easing them into using something better (like BCEA) could be a good gateway to then improving the actual modeling. Again happy to have a stab at this if you are okay with that? |
|
We're doing a big push to move people away from MS Excel and into proper stats software (see for example here) and I too was at a big health economics conference last week harassing people to that effect... ;-) I'm happy for you to have a go at modifying the README file and if you feel there are other parts (eg help files etc) that need updating, please go ahead and send me a push request! |
|
Awesome - will do 😄 Sounds like a great idea - I was pretty shocked to hear about all the excel use honestly. Could you open this up so I can keep track of what I am having a crack at? I have some time blocked out tomorrow for this. |
|
Just done. |
My understanding of the analysis is that the output needs to be based on some kind of simulation that gives a distribution of outcomes.
Does this need to be a true Bayesian posterior or could it be a prior distribution or sample arrived at using other means?
Obviously, it would be better if everyone went bayesian but might it be a good idea to point out that this is optional (if it is)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: