Micro-simulation Modeling

  • Carolyn M. RutterEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Health Services Research book series (HEALTHSR)


Microsimulation models are a tool for informing health policy decisions. Models provide a structure for combining a wide range of evidence that represents the current understanding of both disease and interventions to prevent or treat disease. In the health policy context, microsimulation refers to simulation of an entire population by simulating life histories for individuals within the population. The basic structure of a microsimulation model includes a description of heath states that describe key events in a disease process. Individuals occupy these health states, and the model includes rules describing how individuals transition between states. Models are developed by specifying states and transition rules that result in predictions that reproduce observed or expected results. Model parameters are selected to achieve good prediction through a process of model calibration. Once calibrated, models are used to predict population-level outcomes under different policy scenarios. Model predictions are increasingly being used to provide information to guide health policy decisions. This increased use brings with it the need both for better understanding of microsimulation models by policy researchers and continued improvement in methods for developing and applying microsimulation models. This chapter reviews the process of developing and applying a microsimulation model, drawing from guidelines for best practices for simulation outlined by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and The Society for Medical Decision Making (SDM) (Caro et al. 2012).


  1. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9726):1624–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck J, Pauker S. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Mak. 1983;3:419–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry DA, Inoue L, Shen Y, et al. Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: a Bayesian approach. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006; 36:30–6.Google Scholar
  4. Brauer F, Castillo-Chavez C. Mathematical models for communicable diseases. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 2013.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):722–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cancer Incidence – Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registries Research Data [database on the Internet]. National Cancer Institute, Surveillance Systems Branch. 2012. Available from:
  7. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, et al. Modeling good research practices – overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):667–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Church JM. Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(4):481–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CISNET. 2014. Available at: Accessed 30 Apr 2014.
  10. Cronin KA, Legler JM, Etzioni RD. Assessing uncertainty in microsimulation modelling with application to cancer screening interventions. Stat Med. 1998;17(21):2509–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Mak. 1985;5(2):157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eddy D. Breast cancer screening for Medicare beneficiaries: effectiveness, costs to Medicare and medical resources required. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment; 1987.Google Scholar
  13. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):733–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(13):981–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1472–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, et al. Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82(22):1769–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt CA, Kennedy RC, Kim SH, et al. Agent-based modeling: a systematic assessment of use cases and requirements for enhancing pharmaceutical research and development productivity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2013;5(4):461–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Imperiale TF. Sigmoidoscopy screening: understanding the trade-off between detection of advanced neoplasia and diagnostic efficiency. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(12):846–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(3):169–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1207–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, et al. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-4. Value Health. 2012;15(6):821–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(16):1238–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, et al. Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(6):368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland BG, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-society task force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans affairs cooperative study group 380. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(3):162–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loeve F, Boer R, Zauber AG, et al. National Polyp Study data: evidence for regression of adenomas. Int J Cancer. 2004;111(4):633–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luke DA, Stamatakis KA. Systems science methods in public health: dynamics, networks, and agents. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012;33:357–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandelblatt J, Schechter C, Levy D, et al. Building better models: if we build them, will policy makers use them? Toward integrating modeling into health care decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):656–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muller CM, Mandelblatt J, Schechter C. The cost and effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in elderly women. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment; 1990.Google Scholar
  31. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). n.d.. Available at: Accessed 2008.
  32. National Center for Health Statistics. US Life Tables. 2000.; Available at: Accessed 2013.
  33. Odom SR, Duffy SD, Barone JE, et al. The rate of adenocarcinoma in endoscopically removed colorectal polyps. Am Surg. 2005;71(12):1024–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Parmigiani G. Measuring uncertainty in complex decision analysis models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):513–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. 306 p.Google Scholar
  36. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitman R, Fisman D, Zaric GS, et al. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force Working Group-5. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):712–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(1):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):678–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rutter CM, Savarino JE. An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19(8):1992–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutter CM, Yu O, Miglioretti DL. A hierarchical non-homogenous Poisson model for meta-analysis of adenoma counts. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rutter CM, Miglioretti DL, Savarino JE. Bayesian calibration of microsimulation models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2009;104(488):1338–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rutter CM, Zaslavsky AM, Feuer EJ. Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review. Med Decis Mak. 2010;31(1):10–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):690–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strul H, Kariv R, Leshno M, et al. The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk individuals aged 40–80 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(2):255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. The Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group. Computer modeling of diabetes and it's complication: a report on the 4th Mount Hood challenge meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult. BMJ. 1998;317(7158):559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van der Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Ootmarssen GJ, et al. Cost-effectivness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanni T, Karnon J, Madan J, et al. Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach. PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(1):35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogelaar I, Van Ballegooijen M, Schrag D, et al. How much can current interventions reduce colorectal cancer mortality in the U.S.? Cancer. 2006;107:1623–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations