VerifiedEvidence: highv1.0.0

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

The maximum value of completely resolving uncertainty in a specific subset of a model's parameters, while other parameters remain uncertain.

Last reviewedDarrin Baines IP Ltd

Concept Architecture

Concept


Theoretically, Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information (EVPPI) is a value of information measure that quantifies the expected benefit of eliminating uncertainty in a selected subset of model parameters while uncertainty in all remaining parameters persists. It is founded on Bayesian decision theory and extends the Expected Value of Perfect Information by identifying the value of resolving uncertainty in specific parameters rather than all uncertainty. In health economics, EVPPI is used to prioritise research by identifying which uncertain parameters contribute most to decision uncertainty.

Mathematically, EVPPI is calculated as the difference between the expected net benefit obtained when perfect information is available for a subset of parameters and the expected net benefit obtained under current information. The calculation involves nested expectations because uncertainty is removed only for the parameter subset of interest while all other parameters remain uncertain.

In practice, EVPPI is estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis together with nested Monte Carlo simulation or approximation methods such as Gaussian process regression, regression-based approaches or integrated nested methods. Population EVPPI is obtained by multiplying the per-person EVPPI by the expected number of patients affected during the decision relevance period and is widely used to prioritise future research and optimise study design.

Purpose


Used to quantify the value of eliminating uncertainty in specific model parameters, supporting research prioritisation and efficient allocation of research resources in health economic evaluations.

Mathematical Formulae

Primary Formula

EVPPI = E?[max(E�|?(NMB))] ? max(E(NMB))

where:

? = parameter subset of interest

� = remaining uncertain parameters

NMB = Net Monetary Benefit

Supporting Formulae

Net Monetary Benefit:

NMB = ?E ? C

Population EVPPI:

Population EVPPI = EVPPI ? N

where:

N = affected population over the decision relevance period

Relationship:

0 � EVPPI � EVPI

Related Mathematical Methods

  • Expected Value of Perfect Information
  • Expected Value of Sample Information
  • Expected Net Benefit of Sampling
  • Bayesian Decision Theory
  • Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis
  • Monte Carlo Simulation
  • Gaussian Process Regression

Example


A health economic model identifies treatment efficacy, utility values and treatment costs as uncertain parameters. The EVPPI for treatment efficacy is estimated as �420 per patient, whereas the EVPPI for treatment costs is �35 per patient. With an expected affected population of 20,000 patients, the population EVPPI for treatment efficacy is �8.4 million, indicating that further research should primarily focus on reducing uncertainty surrounding treatment effectiveness.

Excel Implementation

FunctionExample FormulaHealth Economics Application
MAX=MAX(B2:D2)Identify the maximum net monetary benefit for each simulation.
AVERAGE=AVERAGE(ResultRange)Estimate expected net monetary benefit across simulations.
SUMPRODUCT=EVPPI_per_patient*PopulationCalculate the population EVPPI.
IF=IF(B2>C2,"Research priority","Lower priority")Compare EVPPI estimates across parameter groups.

VBA (Optional)


VBA can automate nested simulation outputs, calculate population EVPPI and compare research priorities across alternative parameter groups.

Sources

  • Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. Journal of Health Economics. 1999;18(3):341?364.
  • Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample. Medical Decision Making. 2014;34(3):311?326.
  • Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press.
  • ISPOR Value of Information Good Practice Reports.
  • NICE. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual.

Library

Publications

2
  • Journal article

    Value of Information Analysis for Research Decisions — An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force — Fenwick, Steuten, Knies, Ghabri, Basu, Murray, Koffijberg, Strong, Sanders Schmidler & Rothery, Vol. 23, No. 2 ed., 2020 (Value in Health)

    The introductory ISPOR good-practice report on value-of-information (VOI) analysis, explaining how VOI quantifies the value of reducing decision uncertainty through further research and where it fits in resource-allocation decisions.

  • Journal article

    Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force — Rothery, Strong, Koffijberg, Basu, Ghabri, Knies, Murray, Sanders Schmidler, Steuten & Fenwick, Vol. 23, No. 3 ed., 2020 (Value in Health)

    The methods companion to the ISPOR VOI series, giving detailed algorithms and software guidance for computing EVPI, EVPPI, EVSI and the expected net benefit of sampling, with recommendations for selecting methods by decision-problem features.

Tools & Resources

3
  • OtherFeatured

    SAVI — Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information — Mark Strong, Jeremy Oakley & Penny Breeze (University of Sheffield), Web application ed., 2024 (University of Sheffield)

    A free, open-access web calculator that computes value-of-information measures (EVPI, partial EVPI/EVPPI and EVSI) directly from a model’s probabilistic sensitivity analysis output — no need to re-run the model. Also reports payer strategy-specific and uncertainty burden.

  • Other

    BCEAweb — Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Web Interface — Gianluca Baio, Andrea Berardi & Anna Heath, Web application ed., 2023 (University College London)

    A user-friendly web front-end to the BCEA R package: users upload probabilistic model output and obtain standardised cost-effectiveness summaries — cost-effectiveness planes, acceptability curves, EVPI and EVPPI — without writing R code.

  • Other

    BCEA — Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (R package) — Gianluca Baio, Andrea Berardi & Anna Heath, R package ed., 2023 (CRAN)

    An R package for post-processing the output of a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model in a Bayesian framework — producing acceptability curves, EVPI/EVPPI, expected incremental benefit and standardised value-of-information graphics.

Frequently Asked Questions (6)

  • What is EVPPI?

    The maximum value of completely resolving uncertainty in a specific subset of a model's parameters, while other parameters remain uncertain.

    Source: Felli & Hazen 1998

  • Why is EVPPI calculated for a subset of parameters?

    The overall expected value of perfect information says what removing all uncertainty is worth, but not which uncertainties are worth resolving. EVPPI narrows the question to a chosen subset of parameters, giving the value of learning those precisely while the rest stay uncertain. This identifies where research would pay off, since a high EVPPI for a particular parameter marks it as worth studying and a low one marks it as not. It directs research toward the uncertainties that matter for the decision. Its calculation focuses the analysis. Claxton and Sculpher (2006) describe this.

    Source: Claxton & Sculpher 2006

  • How is EVPPI calculated?

    EVPPI is calculated as the difference between the expected outcome when the parameters of interest are known and the expected outcome under current information. Knowing those parameters, one would choose the best option for each of their values while averaging over the remaining uncertainty; the expected value of this, over the distribution of the parameters of interest, minus the expected value under current information, gives EVPPI. It is typically estimated by simulation, historically by nested loops and now often by more efficient methods such as regression or emulation.

    Source: Felli & Hazen 1998

  • Why is EVPPI useful?

    EVPPI is useful because it identifies which parameters, or groups of parameters, contribute most to decision uncertainty and are therefore most worth researching, guiding the focus of further data collection. Unlike EVPI, which values resolving all uncertainty, EVPPI values resolving specific parameters, so comparing EVPPI across parameters shows where research would most improve decisions. A high EVPPI for a parameter indicates that reducing its uncertainty could substantially raise the value of the decision, making EVPPI a practical tool for prioritising research on particular uncertainties.

    Source: Ades, Lu & Claxton 2004

  • How does EVPPI differ from EVPI?

    EVPPI values resolving the uncertainty in a specific subset of parameters, leaving the rest uncertain, whereas EVPI values resolving all uncertainty at once. EVPPI for any subset is therefore no greater than EVPI, and it apportions the overall value of information among particular parameters, showing which matter most. EVPI gives the total upper bound and the scale of decision uncertainty, while EVPPI identifies the contributions of individual parameters or groups. So EVPPI is the partial, parameter-specific counterpart of the whole-model EVPI.

    Source: Felli & Hazen 1998

  • What are the limitations of EVPPI?

    EVPPI can be computationally demanding to estimate, historically requiring nested simulation, though efficient regression-based and emulation methods have reduced this burden. It depends on the model and its assumed parameter distributions, and on the population and relevance period used to scale it, and it values only complete resolution of the chosen parameters rather than a feasible study, for which the expected value of sample information is needed. These limitations mean EVPPI is used to prioritise parameters for research, with sample-information measures assessing specific study designs.

    Source: Ades, Lu & Claxton 2004

Trust Record

Verified by Dr Darrin Baines

British health economist

Professional identity: darrinbaines.org

Verification date: 31 Oct 2025

Content version: 1.0.0

Canonical Identity

Term code
HE-EM-VI-010

Stable URI · Machine-readable · Resolvable · CC BY 4.0