Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the evidem framework to medicines appraisal

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 376-388

  Goetghebeur, Mireille M ^a   Wagner, Monika ^a   Khoury, Hanane ^a   Levitt, Randy J ^a   Erickson, Lonny J ^a,b   Rindress, Donna ^a  

^a BioMedCom Consultants Inc   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

health care decision making; health technology assessment; multicriteria decision analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CONSENSUS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRUG THERAPY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONSENSUS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DRUG THERAPY; HUMANS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUEBEC; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84859342157     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11416870     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc.. 2006 ; 4: 14
2. Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G. Access to drugs for cancer: does where you live matter?. Can J Public Health. 2005 ; 96 (6). 454-8 (Pubitemid 41762922)
3. PausJenssen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS. Ontario's formulary committee: how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003 ; 21 (4). 285-94 (Pubitemid 36337724)
4. Sinclair S, Hagen NA, Chambers C, Manns B, Simon A, Browman GP. Accounting for reasonableness: exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding. Health Policy. 2008 ; 86 (2-3). 381-90
5. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990 ; 263 (3). 441-3
6. Tunis SR. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 ; 26 (4). w500-15
7. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff.. 1997 ; 26 (4). 303-50
8. Daniels N. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health. 1999 ; 76 (2). 176-91 (Pubitemid 29404748)
9. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S. A difficult balancing act: policy actors' perspectives on using economic evaluation to inform health-care coverage decisions under the universal health insurance coverage scheme in Thailand. Value Health. 2008 ; 2 (suppl 1). S52-60
10. 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 (7). 534-9
11. Camidge DR, Oliver JJ, Skinner C, 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 (2). 224-9 (Pubitemid 351171263)
12. Wilson EC, Peacock SJ, Ruta D. Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?. Health Econ.. 2009 ; 18 (4). 467-78
13. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics.. 2007 ; 25 (8). 685-93 (Pubitemid 47124170)
14. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). HTA Resources. 2010. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/. Accessed 8 March 2010.
15. Velasco GM, Gerhardus A, Rottingen JA, Busse R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy.. 2010 ; 94 (3). 196-202
16. Johri M, Lehoux P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 2003 ; 19 (1). 179-93 (Pubitemid 36356338)
17. 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 (1). 9-16 (Pubitemid 46648294)
18. Dhalla I, Laupacis A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. CMAJ.. 2008 ; 178 (4). 428-31 (Pubitemid 351303286)
19. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ.. 2007 ; 16 (2). 179-93 (Pubitemid 46206612)
20. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines: a review of empirical studies. Health Policy.. 2008 ; 86 (1). 1-9 (Pubitemid 351296302)
21. 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. J Oncol Pract.. 2008 ; 4 (1). 2-7 (Pubitemid 351593652)
22. Tierney M, Manns B. Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review. CMAJ.. 2008 ; 178 (4). 432-5 (Pubitemid 351303287)
23. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet.. 2001 ; 358 (9294). 1676-81 (Pubitemid 33124325)
24. Mullen PM. Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion?. Health Serv Manage Res.. 2004 ; 17 (1). 47-58 (Pubitemid 38312599)
25. Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy.. 2007 ; 12 (2). 80-5 (Pubitemid 46733208)
26. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CMAJ.. 1999 ; 160 (10). 1464-7 (Pubitemid 29248433)
27. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 2008 ; 24 (3). 244-58 (Pubitemid 351950160)
28. EUnetHTA work package 4 team. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. Lampe K Makela M, ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: EUnetHTA ; 2007:
29. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 2003 ; 19 (1). 1-7 (Pubitemid 36356322)
30. Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ.. 2006 ; 15 (7). 689-96 (Pubitemid 44057240)
31. 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 (3). 178-85 (Pubitemid 47355782)
32. Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy.. 2010 ; 96 (3). 262-4
33. Nobre FF, Trotta LT, Gomes LF. Multi-criteria decision making: an approach to setting priorities in health care. Stat Med.. 1999 ; 18 (23). 3345-54
34. Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy.. 2009 ; 92 (2-3). 124-32
35. Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt R, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking-the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Services Research.. 2008 ; 8 (1). 270
36. EVIDEM Collaboration. EVIDEM Collaboration. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.evidem.org
37. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 2002 ; 18 (2). 361-422 (Pubitemid 34533752)
38. Gruskin S, Daniels N. Process is the point: justice and human rights: priority setting and fair deliberative process. Am J Public Health. 2008 ; 98 (9). 1573-7
39. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc.. 2010 ; 8 (1). 4
40. van Til JA, Dolan JG, Stiggelbout AM, Groothuis K, Ijzerman MJ. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Patient.. 2008 ; 1 (2). 127-35
41. EVIDEM Collaboration. Open access prototypes of the Collaborative registry. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.evidem.org/evidem-collaborative. php
42. LomasJCulyerTMcCutcheonCMcAuleyLLawS. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.chsrf.ca/kte-docs/Conceptualizing%20and%20combining%20evidence.pdf
43. 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: 12-26
44. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient.. 2010 ; 3 (4). 229-48
45. Clemen RT, Reilly T Making hard decisions with DecisionTools. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning ; 2001:
46. Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines-part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf.. 2007 ; 16 (Suppl 1). S42-6
47. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess.. 2001 ; 5 (5). 1-186
48. Felli JC, Noel RA, Cavazzoni PA. A multiattribute model for evaluating the benefit-risk profiles of treatment alternatives. Med Decis Making.. 2009 ; 29 (1). 104-15
49. Straus SE, Tetroe JM, Graham ID. Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol.. 2011 ; 64 (1). 6-10
50. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA.. 2001 ; 285 (15). 1987-91 (Pubitemid 32366951)
51. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 2005 ; 21 (2). 240-5 (Pubitemid 40656554)
52. The STROBE group. The STROBE statement: checklist of essential items. 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.strobe-statement.org
53. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res.. 2005 ; 5 (1). 25
54. 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
55. Lomas J. Decision support: a new approach to making the best healthcare management and policy choices. Healthc Q.. 2007 ; 10 (3). 16-8