Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: Applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Goetghebeur, Mireille M ^a   Wagner, Monika ^a   Khoury, Hanane ^a   Rindress, Donna ^a   Grégoire, Jean Pierre ^b   Deal, Cheri ^c  

^a BioMedCom Consultants Inc   (Canada)

^b LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GROWTH HORMONE; PLACEBO;

AORTA DISEASE; ARTHROPATHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EAR DISEASE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PANCREATITIS; RESPIRATORY TRACT DISEASE; SCOLIOSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT STATURE; SINUSITIS; SLIPPED CAPITAL FEMORAL EPIPHYSIS; TURNER SYNDROME;

EID: 77950631288     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14787547     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-8-4     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Schlander M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:534-539. 10.1136/jme.2007.021683, 18591289.
2. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008, 12:iii. ix-iii,175.
3. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl 1):S10-S15. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00516.x, 19250125.
4. Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, Karakiewicz P, Martin D, Tugwell P, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases--a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009, 16:e273-e281.
5. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24:244-258.
6. Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d'Almeida SA, Bosu WK, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health 2008, 11:1081-1087. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00392.x, 19602214.
7. Browman GP, Manns B, Hagen N, Chambers CR, Simon A, Sinclair S. 6-STEPPPs: A modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs. Journal of Oncology Practice 2008, 4:2-7.
8. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:141-150. 10.1017/S0266462309090199, 19366496.
9. Tierney M, Manns B. Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review. CMAJ 2008, 178:432-435. 2228339, 18268271.
10. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001, 358:1676-1681. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06714-9, 11728542.
11. Mullen PM. Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion?. Health Serv Manage Res 2004, 17:47-58. 10.1258/095148404322772723, 15006086.
12. Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007, 12:80-85. 10.1258/135581907780279495, 17407656.
13. Camidge DR, Oliver JJ, Skinner C, Attwood B, Nussey F, Jodrell D, et al. The impact of prognosis without treatment on doctors' and patients' resource allocation decisions and its relevance to new drug recommendation processes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008, 65:224-229. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.02996.x, 2291216, 18251760.
14. Wilson EC, Peacock SJ, Ruta D. Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?. Health Econ 2008,
15. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007, 25:685-693. 10.2165/00019053-200725080-00006, 17640110.
16. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4:14. 10.1186/1478-7547-4-14, 1560167, 16923181.
17. Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ 2006, 15:689-696. 10.1002/hec.1092, 16491464.
18. Baltussen R, ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW. Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?. Health Policy Plan 2007, 22:178-185. 10.1093/heapol/czm010, 17412742.
19. Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy 2009, 92:124-132. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.02.006, 19346024.
20. Culyer AJ. Equity of what in healthcare? Why the traditional answers don't help policy--and what to do in the future. Healthc Pap 2007, 8(Spec No):12-26.
21. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. , http://www.chsrf.ca/kte_docs/Conceptualizing%20and%20combining%20evidence.pdf
22. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997, 26:303-350. 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x, 11660435.
23. Hutton J, Trueman P, Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24:511-517. 10.1017/S0266462308080677, 18828948.
24. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:9-16. 10.1017/S0266462307051513, 17234011.
25. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:1-8.
26. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21:312-318. 10.1017/S0266462305050415, 16110710.
27. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking - the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:270. 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270, 2673218, 19102752.
28. Bondy CA. Care of girls and women with Turner syndrome: A guideline of the Turner Syndrome Study Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007, 92:10-25. 10.1210/jc.2006-1374, 17047017.
29. Stochholm K, Juul S, Juel K, Naeraa RW, Gravholt CH. Prevalence, incidence, diagnostic delay, and mortality in Turner syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006, 91:3897-3902. 10.1210/jc.2006-0558, 16849410.
30. Gruskin S, Daniels N. Process is the point: justice and human rights: priority setting and fair deliberative process. Am J Public Health 2008, 98:1573-1577. 10.2105/AJPH.2007.123182, 18633088.
31. Persad G, Werthiemer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet 2009, 373:423-431. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9, 19186274.
32. Daniels N. Justice, health, and healthcare. Am J Bioeth 2001, 1:2-16.
33. Daniels N. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health 1999, 76:176-191. 10.1007/BF02344674, 10924028.
34. World Heath Organization Guidance on ethics and equitable access to HIV treatment and care. World Heath Organization., http://www.who.int/ethics/Guidance%20on%20Ethics%20and%20HIV.pdf
35. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Drug reimbursement in Finland-a case of explicit prioritizing in special categories. Health Policy 2003, 66:169-177. 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00042-3, 14585516.
36. Giacomini M. One of these things is not like the others: the idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Milbank Q 2005, 83:193-223. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00344.x, 15960769.
37. Baxter L, Bryant J, Cave CB, Milne R. Recombinant growth hormone for children and adolescents with Turner syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, CD003887.
38. Freemantle N, Hessel F. The applicability and generalizability of findings from clinical trials for health-policy decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:5-10. 10.2165/00019053-200927010-00002, 19178120.
39. Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, Thissen JP, Closon MC, Horsmans Y, et al. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24:318-325. 10.1017/S0266462308080422, 18601800.
40. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86:420-428. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420, 18839484.
41. Dhalla I, Laupacis A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. CMAJ 2008, 178:428-431. 2228347, 18268270.
42. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:43. 10.1186/1472-6963-9-43, 2655292, 19265518.
43. Lomas J. Decision support: a new approach to making the best healthcare management and policy choices. Healthc Q 2007, 10:16-18.
44. Daniels N. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2000, 9:309-322. 10.1017/S0963180100903037, 10858880.
45. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 2009, 301:429-431. 10.1001/jama.2009.15, 19176446.
46. Bruni RA, Laupacis A, Martin DK. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. CMAJ 2008, 179:15-18. 2464477, 18591516.
47. Taylor DW, Fowler E. The importance of patient participation in health policy decision making consumer engagement in health technology assessment: Recommendations for the mandate and makeup of a citizens' council as created under Ontario's Transparent Drug System for Patients Act. 2007,
48. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Patient and Public Involvement Programme. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence., http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/ppipinvolvementprogramme.jsp
49. Haverkamp F, Ranke MB. The ethical dilemma of growth hormone treatment of short stature: a scientific theoretical approach. Horm Res 1999, 51:301-304. 10.1159/000023417, 10640891.
50. Verweij M, Kortmann F. Moral assessment of growth hormone therapy for children with idiopathic short stature. J Med Ethics 1997, 23:305-309. 10.1136/jme.23.5.305, 1377370, 9358351.
51. Stiggelbout AM, Vogel-Voogt E, Noordijk EM, Vliet Vlieland TP. Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting?. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:641-649. 10.1007/s11136-008-9325-6, 2358934, 18398699.