David Mott
David is an expert in measuring and valuing health outcomes to inform healthcare decision-making.
His research spans a diverse range of topics in health economics and outcomes research. This includes applying and validating patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), developing value sets for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimation, generating vignette-based utilities for technology appraisals, assessing carer quality of life and related spillover effects, investigating patient preferences for novel treatments, and exploring societal preferences regarding health policies.
Recently, his research has encompassed several key areas: understanding societal support for NICE’s severity modifier, integrating carer spillovers into health technology assessment, eliciting treatment and health outcome preferences of people with acute and chronic leukaemia, and exploring the complexities of valuing health in children and adolescents.
David is a member of the EuroQol Group Association and serves on the Valuation Working Group. He has published widely in peer–reviewed journals and is a regular contributor at international health economics conferences. He has a PhD in Health Economics from Newcastle University, as well as an MSc in Economics and Health Economics and BSc in Economics, both from the University of Sheffield.
Publications and Insights
- Publication: Altering the trajectory of HIV in Europe
- Insight: GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Shifting Obesity Management
- Publication: Understanding societal preferences for priority by disease severity in England & Wales
- Insight: Kahneman’s legacy in health economics
- Insight: NICE’s severity modifier: a step in the right direction, but still a long way to go
- Insight: Including Carer Quality of Life in Health Technology Evaluation: Are We There Yet?
- Publication: When Generic Measures Fail to Reflect What Matters to Patients: Three Case Studies
- Publication: How is Quality of Life Measured for Health Technology Assessments?
- Publication: Resource Allocation in Public Sector Programmes: Does the Value of a Life Differ Between Governmental Departments?