Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment in Canada: Insights from an expert panel discussion

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 13-19

  Diaby, Vakaramoko ^a   Goeree, Ron ^b   Hoch, Jeffrey ^c,d   Siebert, Uwe ^e  

^a FLORIDA A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Canada; decision making; health technology assessment; healthcare; multi criteria decision analysis; workshop

Indexed keywords

CANADA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; METHODOLOGY; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SAFETY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WORKSHOP; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT;

CANADA; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84937000132     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2015.965155     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63(2):121-32
2. CDR. Available from: http://cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/cdr-overview
3. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effect Resour Alloc 2006;4(1):14
4. pCODR. Available from: www.pcodr.ca/
5. Yoon KP, Hwang C. Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage; NY, USA: 1995
6. Belton V, Stewart T. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer; NY, USA: 2002
7. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014;14(1): 81-99
8. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012;15(8): 1172-81
9. Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, et al. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(04):369-75
10. Mitton CR, Donaldson C. Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Health Policy 2003;64(3):335-48
11. Ruta D, Mitton C, Bate A, Donaldson C. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: bridging the divide between doctors and managers. BMJ 2005;330(7506):1501-3
12. Peacock SJ, Richardson JR, Carter R, Edwards D. Priority setting in health care using multi-Attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Soc Sci Med 2007;64(4):897-910
13. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20(01):44-54
14. Dias L, Clímaco J. Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 2000; 51(9):1070-82
15. Menon D, McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28(2):109-11
16. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26(01):79-85
17. EVIDEM. Available from: www.evidem.org/