Supporting Cardiovascular Health Economics: Insights from the BHF Data Science Centre Workshop

1 Supporting Cardiovascular Health Economics: Insights from the BHF Data Science Centre Workshop Report summarising the discussions, findings and recommendations from our stakeholder workshop, and additional insights from patient and public engagement activities. Executive summary The British Heart Foundation (BHF) Data Science Centre convened a workshop in May 2025 to explore how health economics can be better integrated into cardiovascular research. The workshop highlighted opportunities for health economics in evaluating existing practices but also in shaping future prevention, treatment, and policy decisions. Participants agreed that the Centre already meets many of the health economics community’s needs, but awareness of its services in this field is limited. Priorities include targeted outreach, collaboration with health economists, clinicians, and the public to define priority research questions, ensure relevant datasets (including costing data) are available, and design services that meet the analytical needs of health economics research. Follow-up patient and public engagement activities identified strong support for the use of health data in economic analyses among members of our Public Advisory Group. They emphasised the importance of engaging the wider public and improving understanding of how health economics contributes to better care. Priority areas highlighted by patients and the public included evaluating new treatments and interventions, strengthening prevention strategies and identifying improvements in care pathways that can deliver both better patient outcomes and cost savings. Background and aims The BHF Data Science Centre enables data-led research into the causes, prevention and treatment of diseases of the heart and circulation. Since its launch in 2019, the BHF Data Science Centre has delivered access to and curation of health data on over 60 million people, enabling impactful, highquality research spanning stroke, heart failure, diabetes, medicines and health inequalities. The Centre is committed to meeting the needs of the diverse cardiovascular research community, including groups that have engaged less with our services to date. Health economists, in particular, have had limited interaction with our resources. To begin addressing this gap, we convened a group of motivated and experienced health economists to explore opportunities for collaboration and identify how we can better support their work. Health economics is a field of study that analyses healthcare systems, the allocation of resources, and the costs versus benefits of medical, service and policy interventions. It helps policymakers, healthcare providers, and researchers make informed decisions to improve effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility in healthcare. In the UK, health economics plays a crucial role in shaping policies and interventions related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in several ways, including: • Cost-effectiveness of treatments and interventions • Cost-benefit analysis of preventive healthcare and public health policies • Justification of research and development funding allocation • NHS resource allocation and workforce planning 2 The Centre organised a workshop to explore the opportunities and challenges involved in using linked healthcare and non-healthcare data for health economics research to improve cardiovascular disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The workshop brought together representatives across the stakeholder space with the aims of: • Identifying the opportunities and key research questions for health economics in cardiovascular disease research • Understanding the key challenges of using linked healthcare and non-healthcare data for health economics • Creating a UK-wide network of diverse stakeholders interested in this area Following the workshop, we sought broader input and a deeper exploration of key issues with patients and the public by engaging our Public Advisory Group. These activities included a virtual interactive session and a follow-up survey, both co-designed with the two patient and public representatives who attended the workshop. Health economics workshop The one-day workshop was held in York on 13th May 2025 and brought together over 30 invited representatives across relevant stakeholders, including health economists, health data science researchers, clinicians and representatives from policy and funding organisations. A workshop attendee list is included as Appendix A. Two patient and public representatives attended the workshop, with the intension that they would work in partnership with the BHF Data Science Centre PPIE Manager to co-produce a session to engage and gather input from the wider BHF Data Science Centre Public Advisory Group. Workshop sessions The workshop, agenda included as Appendix B, began with an introductory session to set the scene. This was followed by three topic sessions to explore the opportunities and challenges of using linked healthcare and non-healthcare data for health economics in cardiovascular research. Each topic session featured talks from invited speakers with expertise in this area, followed by an interactive breakout session to enable broad and open discussion and to gather input from all participants. The questions addressed in the breakout sessions are included in Table 1, with the collated notes in Appendix C. The workshop wrapped up with discussion to set recommendations towards realising the opportunities identified. Table 1. Breakout session questions Session Breakout questions 1 - Opportunities • What are the key areas within cardiovascular health where health economics analysis could have the greatest impact on improving patient outcomes and supporting healthcare decision-making? • How can we ensure that health economics research in cardiovascular disease is inclusive and considers the needs of diverse patient populations? 2 - Requirements and Challenges • What are the major challenges or barriers that have historically limited the integration of health economics into cardiovascular research and clinical practice? How can these be overcome? 3 • What existing UK health data sources and infrastructure could be leveraged to support robust cardiovascular health economics analyses? What are the key limitations or gaps that need to be addressed? • What skills, expertise and collaborative partnerships are needed to conduct high-quality, impactful health economics research in the cardiovascular field? 3 - Priorities for the BHF Data Science Centre • How can the BHF Data Science Centre play a proactive role in promoting the integration of health economics into cardiovascular research and clinical practice? • What specific data assets, analytic tools or training programmes should the BHF Data Science Centre prioritise to support cardiovascular health economics research? Introductory session Steffen Petersen (BHF Data Science Centre) welcomed everyone, with a reminder of the aims of the workshop. Steffen then went on to introduce the BHF Data Science Centre and its aim of delivering a sustainable UK-wide, multi-modal data infrastructure for cardiovascular research, providing streamlined data access, linkage, and governance. Andrew Street (London School of Economics) introduced the main areas of health economic research. These include evaluating: • The full economic cost of disease to illustrate the impact to society • The cost versus benefit of a treatment or intervention • The evaluative approaches in a non-randomised setting to assess causality Becky Elliott, Head of Policy at the BHF, presented an overview of how economic analysis supports the BHF in developing evidence-based policy to improve cardiovascular health and care. The BHF’s key policy priorities are better prevention of cardiovascular disease, the prioritisation of NHS heart care and supercharging cardiovascular research. Influencing policy in the current economic environment is extremely challenging, with Government facing multiple competing demands. The BHF have used economic evidence to underpin analysis of key issues and recommendations for action. This includes quantifying the healthcare cost of CVD, along with the wider cost to society, to demonstrate that the scale and impact of cardiovascular disease merits action, and modelling the potential impact of reducing salt consumption across the population. Becky highlighted the importance of this evidence being impactful, relevant and solutionsfocused, helping the government know what can be done to achieve their aims and the potential gains to be realised. Session 1 – Opportunities As an introduction to this session, we heard contrasting views on the opportunities for health economics in cardiovascular research with a clinical perspective from James Fotheringham (University of Sheffield) and a health economist’s perspective from Boby Mihaylova (Queen Mary University of London). James Fotheringham presented a clinical perspective on where health economics is needed in cardiovascular health and disease. James discussed the need to understand the entirety of the disease 4 aetiology 1 and to incorporate this in health economic modelling to identify where investment can have the highest impact. Potential priority areas from a clinical perspective include cardiovascular imaging, leveraging the power of big data to analyse rare diseases and outcomes, and in clinical trials by supplementing clinical trial data with real-world evidence and using surrogate endpoints 2 . Adherence to guidelines was also seen as a key opportunity, specifically the cost-effectiveness of improving adherence to existing guidelines versus the introduction of new guidelines. To wrap up, James reminded us of the importance of patient and public involvement and engagement in setting priorities, referencing the BHF Data Science Centre’s public survey to identify the most important areas for research into cardiovascular disease. We then heard a health economist’s perspective on the potential impact of health economics on CVD from Boby Mihaylova. While CVD incidence remains high and unchanged over the last 15 years the economic burden is increasing, with long term care contributing a large part of this. Reducing this will require focusing on areas of high burden e.g. low socioeconomic status. Health economic analyses and modelling have contributed to the development of strategies focused on CVD prevention that are expected to alleviate health inequalities, such as the Salt Reduction Programme for food industry reformulation. Key areas for future impact include cost-effectiveness assessments of interventions with a stronger focus on prevention, innovation incentives, equity, ageing populations and a reflection of changing risk factors, behaviours and nuanced CVD burden. In breakout groups, participants explored where health economics analysis might have the greatest impact in improving cardiovascular patient outcomes and guiding healthcare decision-making. A central theme was the unique opportunity presented by access to whole-population patient data, which enables large-scale analyses. However, it was acknowledged that some groups - especially those who do not engage with healthcare - remain underrepresented, even in routine datasets. Participants noted that while the current focus is on CVD, many principles and analyses could extend to other health conditions, potentially offering greater economies of scale. Prevention emerged as a major priority. Economic evaluation of preventive strategies, particularly around social, behavioural, and lifestyle determinants of health, could have substantial populationlevel benefits. Areas such as obesity prevention, early use of statins and blood pressure monitoring, and improved risk assessment tools were discussed. Public health interventions, such as changes in food policy (e.g. reformulation of processed foods), were seen as highly impactful but often reliant on individual behaviour rather than systemic action. Participants emphasised the need to better understand the barriers people face in adopting healthy behaviours, particularly among lower-income groups with limited choices, and to ensure diversity in research studies. Evaluation of clinical interventions was another key area. Participants noted that expensive drugs and cardiac procedures often lack robust economic evaluation, with most thresholds based on clinical rather than economic criteria. Screening uptake remains low, particularly among certain demographics, and adherence to both treatments and guidelines is a persistent challenge. Understanding the reasons for poor adherence, from clinician workload to patient-level barriers, could help target improvements where they would have the greatest economic and health benefit. 1 The factors and mechanisms that cause a health condition or disease. This can include the biological mechanisms, infectious agents, genetic factors, and lifestyle or environmental influences. 2 Lab measurements or other clinical signs used to indicate whether an intervention has made a difference to a final, patient-important outcome. 5 Economic analyses that account for differences in effectiveness by ethnicity, age, gender, and risk thresholds were seen as particularly valuable. Understanding and reducing costs - both direct healthcare costs and wider societal costs - was viewed as essential. This includes the high cost of hospital care, the full economic impact of informal care (e.g. including loss of earnings of carer), and emerging issues such as the cardiovascular implications of Long COVID. Areas for further exploration included the economics of polypharmacy 3 , whether lowerrisk individuals could be safely discharged to community care, and whether delays in treatment can be cost-neutral or cost-saving without harming patients. Participants stressed that assessing both the immediate and long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions could better inform NHS decisionmaking. The breakout groups emphasised that while “whole population” data, such as that used in the BHF Data Science Centre context, is generally less biased than survey data, it may still have gaps - particularly in capturing certain variables such as socioeconomic factors. These gaps can limit understanding of diverse patient needs and risk reinforcing inequalities, especially if policy interventions inadvertently disadvantage socioeconomically deprived groups, leading to perceptions of “victim blaming.” Participants highlighted the importance of involving underrepresented groups from the outset of research and policy design, ensuring their voices shape priorities and approaches. Suggestions included exploring whether industry should play a role, linking household-level data (given the potential for interventions to work better among cohabiting individuals), and addressing future data availability if the census is replaced. Issues around data ownership and governance were also raised, with recent changes in data controller responsibilities prompting further discussion. Session 2 – Requirements and challenges Matt Sutton (University of Manchester) opened the session with a presentation on the current use of UK health systems data in health economics, highlighting both its value and its limitations. Commonly used datasets include Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), the Office for National Statistics (ONS) birth and death records, GP practice registration population estimates, the National Cost Collection, and NHS workforce statistics. Access to primary care data such as practice-level administrative records remains challenging, though recent improvements are promising. Matt identified data access as the greatest barrier, citing uncertainty, inconsistency in access processes, and significant time lags. He also noted difficulties in securing protocol approvals and emphasised the impact of patient opt-outs. A key limitation is that available data largely records the quantity of events, rather than measures that capture the benefit or quality of care. Missing but potentially valuable data include patient-reported outcomes and experiences, as well as information on decision points in the care pathway. Data on the use of digital services, more common since the pandemic, also remains scarce. John Nolan (BHF Data Science Centre) outlined the data assets and infrastructure provided by the BHF Data Science Centre to support cardiovascular research. The population-wide, linked, health-relevant datasets available via the CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT Consortium within the NHS England Secure Data Environment (SDE) encompass the majority, if not all, of those used as standard in health economics research as presented by Matt in the previous presentation. While approval for use of these is currently limited to COVID research, this is being extended, with access for broad health research of public benefit likely to be available in the next few months. The BHF Data Science Centre’s 3 Where a person is using multiple (often defined as more than 5) medicines at the same time. 6 team of Health Data Scientists provide expert support to researchers, including signposting and guidance, curation and off-the-shelf curated data assets, tools and data insight dashboards. They are also able to support pipeline development or provide full-service analysis if required. Discussion in the breakout groups focused on the requirements and challenges for supporting health economics research. The consensus in the breakout groups was that the data assets provided by the BHF Data Science Centre meet the majority of health economists needs. However, a lack of data measuring quality of care or patient reported outcome measures is a problem, contributing to an overall lack of data to assess quality or patient benefit. An additional challenge is that limited data is available on behaviour, relying on the extrapolation of data from small cohort studies which may introduce problems. It was agreed that these challenges are inherent in the current data landscape, and are not specific to the Centre. A suggestion was to explore linkage of more data to small geographical areas, via Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA), for example information on income, employment and education, to healthcare data. This might provide insights into the relationships between different care strategies and these factors. There was agreement that there was scope to improve engagement between health economists and the clinical research community. This was reported by both sides, with clinical researchers also reporting a lack of access to health economists. Suggestions to address this included establishing collaborative working environments and increasing dialogue between researchers from different domains. Partnership with organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) will also be important to increase impact. The public perception of health economics was recognised as a challenge, with healthcare rationing frequently regarded as an outcome of efforts to balance costs with the value of services. This perception could be improved by generating evidence of the use of health economics to improve the quality of care for patients. It is important to involve the public and patients in the dialogue and codevelopment of studies to ensure relevance and appropriateness from their perspectives. Additional challenges were discussed, including obtaining funding and difficulties recruiting health economists to academic institutions, however these are wider issues that are out of scope of the BHF Data Science Centre. Session 3 – Priorities for the BHF Data Science Centre in supporting health economics The final session focused on identifying priorities for the Centre to support health economics in cardiovascular research and address the challenges, with breakout groups followed by discussion. The workshop highlighted that the Centre already fulfils many of the core requirements of the health economics community. However, awareness of the Centre and its services within this community remains limited. Clear, targeted communication is needed to explain what the Centre offers, emphasising benefits such as ease of data access, available tools and packages, and alignment with the analytical approaches used by health economists. Messaging should also outline the requirements, costs, and timelines for accessing data, and be tailored to reassure health economists that their specific needs will be met. To achieve this, it will be important to collaborate directly with health economists in developing the messaging to ensure relevance and impact. Opportunities for engagement could include presenting at health economics conferences, running training workshops or webinars, and targeting early-career researchers with dedicated training offers. 7 An effective way to raise awareness would be to showcase a concrete example of health economics in a project enabled by the Centre. The workshop discussed the potential for a short, low-cost “driver project” that could be delivered with existing data and approvals - ideally a COVID-related study (due to current approvals being limited to COVID-related research) with clear potential impact. This could involve embedding an analyst within the Health Data Science team or supporting a master’s student. Projects that demonstrate cost savings for the NHS, improve resource allocation, or better patient outcomes would be particularly valuable, with potential research topics including: • Analysing the overuse of tests or interventions and their economic impact • Identifying bottlenecks in care pathways • Assessing the cost–benefit of risk stratification It will be essential to confirm that the necessary costing datasets are available, and to include clinical expertise in designing research questions. Public involvement is also critical to this work. Engaging the public can raise awareness of the value of health economics, build trust, and demonstrate tangible benefits through personal case stories. Moving forward, the Centre should act as a convener, bringing together a multidisciplinary group - including health economists, clinicians, researchers, patient and public representatives, and other stakeholders - in an inclusive and collaborative dialogue to identify priority research areas and the requirements for their delivery. Health economists should be involved in the design and development of the Centre’s services to ensure datasets, curated assets, and analytical tools meet their needs, particularly in relation to costing data. Recommendations from health economics workshop Here, we report our recommendations on how the BHF Data Science Centre can ensure the full benefits of health economics to improve cardiovascular care are realised: 1. Raise awareness of the Centre’s services within the health economics community. 2. Deliver a collaborative exemplar project to demonstrate impact. 3. Act as a convener to define priorities and requirements through inclusive dialogue. 4. Embed public involvement in decision-making and project development. Patient and public involvement and engagement Overview Acting on the recommendation to embed meaningful public involvement in decision-making, we sought additional input from patients and members of the public. Our objectives were to broaden the range of voices informing the work, explore several themes raised during the workshop in more depth, and ensure that the BHF Data Science Centre’s activities continue to reflect the needs and expectations of patients and the public. Engagement with our Public Advisory Group (PAG) was a key first step in achieving this. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities We held a virtual PPIE session open to all PAG members, with 15 participants attending. To ensure that discussions were accessible and meaningful, the session was co-designed with the two public contributors who attended the earlier workshop. Together we developed an accessible briefing document providing an introduction to health economics, an overview of the workshop, and a clear 8 description of the aims and questions to be explored during the session. This was circulated to all PAG members in advance. The session began with an introductory presentation summarising the Health Economics Workshop, including case studies illustrating different aspects of health economics research, the relevance of this work to the BHF, and the recommendations emerging from the workshop. Breakout discussions generated rich conversation and valuable insights regarding public attitudes and expectations. Given the high level of engagement, it was agreed that a short follow-up survey (Appendix D) would be circulated to ensure all perspectives were captured and fairly represented. The survey was shared with all PAG members, regardless of attendance, with an initial question asking respondents whether they had attended the session to enable stratified analysis. PPIE input In total, we received input from 19 patient and public representatives: 15 who attended the session and completed the survey, and an additional 4 who completed the survey only. Across this group, there was strong support for the use of health data in health economics research. More than 80% of respondents expressed support for using health data for this purpose, rising to over 90% when the research aim was specified. Those who expressed reservations highlighted the need for greater clarity about how the data would be used and the purpose of the research. Public and patient views on using health data for health economics research To understand broader public perspectives, we asked: “What might the views of the public and patients be on using health data for health economics research?”. While the PAG is broadly supportive, participants recognised that some members of the wider public may be cautious. Many people appreciate that NHS resources are limited and that value for money is important. However, concerns arise when health economics is associated with rationing or decisions that may restrict access to treatments. Participants noted that, at a personal level, individuals naturally prioritise the best possible care for themselves and their loved ones, regardless of cost. Participants felt that some of this concern is fuelled by the way such issues are presented in the media, with complex issues often reduced to simplistic or negative narratives. Even public health interventions intended to improve population wellbeing can be portrayed negatively. Building trust was seen as essential. Participants suggested that public confidence could be strengthened through clear explanations of how costs and benefits are measured, why economic evidence matters, and how these approaches support fair and effective healthcare. A public awareness campaign, featuring accessible examples of health economics in practice, was recommended. Messaging should emphasise improved outcomes for patients rather than cost-saving and should avoid appearing critical or shaming of those living with medical conditions. Prevention was thought to be a strong starting point, as it is both a national priority and an area where the public may feel more comfortable. Participants also emphasised the importance of calculating the full economic cost of disease, including impacts on patients, carers, and families - not just direct NHS expenditure. Patient and public views on priorities for health economics research We also sought PAG views on the areas within cardiovascular health where health economics analysis could have the greatest impact. 9 Despite the concerns raised, economic analysis to support the implementation of new treatments and interventions was the area regarded to have the highest impact. Prevention was identified as a major priority, aligning with wider NHS and government strategies. Participants noted that prevention is also likely to be an area where the public feels most positively about economic analysis. Suggestions of areas for research included: • Screening programmes to identify risks earlier, enabling lifestyle changes and preventive treatment. • Improving access to primary care, with concern that the current difficulty in securing GP appointments may lead to later diagnoses and more serious health crises. • Clear information about lifestyle risks and preventive measures, empowering individuals to make healthier choices. Another priority was analysis exploring where improvements in care pathways or the functioning of the healthcare system could deliver both cost savings and better patient outcomes. Participants emphasised that economic evaluation should consider the quality, timeliness and efficiency of care. Examples included: • Delays in ambulance response times, which may lead to poorer clinical outcomes and increased long-term medical costs. • Enhancing the quality of rehabilitation, for example for stroke patients, where improved support could lead to better outcomes and reduced total costs. • Reducing inefficiencies across the health service, such as inconsistent communication between hospitals or across regions, which can result in duplicated tests, delays, and avoidable harm. These examples highlighted the need for economic models that account for the cost of not providing optimal care - for both the health system and patients. An economic approach that links quality of care with patient outcomes, recovery times, and long-term costs was viewed as valuable and necessary. Participants also stressed the importance of addressing inequalities. They noted that inequities in care and inequalities in access to healthcare can distort data that may appear representative on the surface. Take-home messages • Strong but not universal support: Although the PAG was broadly supportive of health economics research using health data, members emphasised that their views may not represent the wider public. Ongoing PPIE is essential. • Need for wider engagement: Participants encouraged efforts to engage the broader public, contribute to improved public understanding, and highlight positive examples of health economics in practice. • Full economic cost matters: Health economics analysis should incorporate the complete economic impact of cardiovascular disease, including patient and carer burden, not just healthcare system costs. 16 o We need to ensure we have the voices of those who are excluded (particularly with the policy interventions) - get them involved at the outset. o Linking households (interventions may be more effective in individuals who live together). NHS does now know about household composition through GP registrations. o Is there something coming to replace the census? Session 2 - Requirements and Challenges What are the major challenges or barriers that have historically limited the integration of health economics into cardiovascular research and clinical practice? How can these be overcome? Data • Initial perception is that data is not the biggest issue. Although not as good as Scandinavia, we have more patients. • Data sources and infrastructure. • There are some new barriers - the opt-out legislation for instance. • Is linkage a problem? Sometimes the linkage isn’t required (some evidence around this). Lack of data on quality of care/patient-reported outcomes • Patient-reported outcome measures - more of these might mean the public look more favourably. Discussed where EQ-5D is being collected in healthcare, but generally it is not systematic • More generally, we capture lots of information about resource use, but not a lot about improvement in health (like HRQoL). Example was how you are approached or asked to confirm that you are attending an appointment - can you add PROMs here. • Pre and post measurement is useful but you don’t have a prebecause you don’t know that you are going to have a stroke. • What is the criteria of success? We don’t ask patients this enough if the treatment is making them feel better. Public perception of health economics • Public perception - Perceive that there is some rationing as a consequence of health economics. Can we generate data which mitigates this. e.g. data on the experience via data and backed up by patients who review this data. Lack of engagement with health economists • Previous reluctance of clinicians to engage with health economists - now changing • Lack of access of clinical researchers to health economists Difficulties recruiting/lack of health economists • Pharma attracting many health economistsdifficulties recruiting health economists to academic institutions Funding • Funding a major issue • Is funding a problem - is it easy to get funding? 17 What existing UK health data sources and infrastructure could be leveraged to support robust cardiovascular health economics analyses? What are the key limitations or gaps that need to be addressed? • Need to make sure that the right health economists are in the room e.g. NHS health economists • This often depends on the question - secondary care to primary, treatment to prevention. • All three of the shifts are dodgy (the estimates / assumptions). • Local authority data LSOA could be used alongside environmental data (pollution, green space data) etc • Limitations o Limited data on behaviour - usually estimated in small cohorts and extrapolated out. Is this a problem? What skills, expertise and collaborative partnerships are needed to conduct highquality, impactful health economics research in the cardiovascular field? • Collaborative working environment with health economists/ clinicians etc • May be more challenging in some institutions • Impactful relationships required i.e. links to NICE Session 3 - Priorities for the BHF Data Science Centre How can the BHF Data Science Centre play a proactive role in promoting the integration of health economics into cardiovascular research and clinical practice? Raising awareness • Awareness needs to be improved. However, there is lack of understanding as to the cost of using the BHF service. There was the suggestion there would need to be some cost recovery. • HSG - have an early career group - could attend and raise awareness. • Could the centre have a role in educating / training - early career researchers for example. • Or health economists could be at the HDRUK event. • Integration of health economist in BHF Data Science Centre panel for selection of studies • Embed health economist within team Priority areas of research • Should analyses of costs be performed (as it does not seem these analyses have been performed in the past). • Make sure health economists are aware of the specific research questions and disease areas that are already ongoing (this represents an opportunity to get clinician support). • We suspect some groups have research questions they cannot answer with RCTs and RWE is an important solution. • Med-tech NICE appraisal - Evidence assessment groups for late stage technology appraisals could benefit from accessing data. • Working with funders - MRC, NIHR Requirements • Need to make sure access to data is easy (pathway in is the same as other research projects) 18 • Transparency with costs etc Challenges • There needs to be clarity as to the security / renewal of the centre for people who are writing grants. • Imaging - BHF DSC cannot take a role in this currently but perhaps in the future. Priority data • Imaging data, lab data, NHSBT, • Census, labour market statistics, benefits claim, employment record, social care, informal care (carers etc) • PROMs and PREMs What specific data assets, analytic tools or training programmes should the BHF Data Science Centre prioritise to support cardiovascular health economics research? • Early career researchers - day sessions. • Methods / tools - data preparation / data cleaning. • There is a feeling that the econometric abilities exist - it’s more about onboarding (software packages) - perhaps no different to other groups of researchers. • NIHR RSS is supposed to have a training role - could engage with the national coordinating centre. • The scale of the problem analysis seems like a logical study for a population-wide dataset. • Some discussions around existing analyses - material needs to be transferred to a different community. 19 Appendix D: Survey of Public Advisory Group 20 21 22