Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software in Healthcare Priority Setting: A Systematic Review

Moreno-Calderón, Alexander; Tong, Thaison; Thokala, Praveen

doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00863-9

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, truly innovative and valued technologies are not necessarily receiving appropriate funding limiting patient access once launched (7,15,79,80). Potential ways to address this include creating budgetary space through encouraging the use of low cost generics and biosimilars where pertinent, improving the competitiveness of the off-patent market for orphan drugs as more medicines for orphan diseases lose their patents building on examples in Europe including imatinib, which was initially launched as an orphan disease medicine, developing new models for pricing considerations especially for orphan diseases including multicriteria decision models, which can also be used for priority setting, as well as developing fair pricing models (32,56,(81)(82)(83)(84)(85)(86)(87)(88)(89)(90)(91)(92). There has also been a growth in managed entry agreements (MEAs) across countries to help with reimbursement and funding of new valued medicines.…”

Section: Rationale Behind Managed Entry Agreements (Meas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high-and middle-income countries. Methods: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior level co-authors including key South American markets. Afterall, involved senior level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results: 25 studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%), and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusion: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences and practices across countries is crucial to guide high-and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

show abstract

Section: Rationale Behind Managed Entry Agreements (Meas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although several MCDA software tools exist, including PriorityVax for immunization, these tools are limited to a quantitative MCDA approach and tend to provide less support for deliberation and country-led contextualization-they allow adaptation of fixed stages but not the overall process. 24,25 These tools are more appropriate in settings with strong processes for stakeholder engagement and deliberation; the CAPACITI decision-support tool supports other countries to build such processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decisionsupport tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. Methods:The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Results:The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership.Conclusions: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

show abstract

“…Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is the most prevalent nutritional deficiency worldwide, being present in 29% non-pregnant women, 38% pregnant women, and more than 40% of children [1]. Data for the prevalence of anaemia in Europe reports rates of 11% (6-20) for children under 5 years old, 16% (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) for non-pregnant women aged 15-49, and 22% (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) for pregnant women between 15-49 years old [2], this data is in accordance with a national study reporting a prevalence of 22.6% of anaemia in pregnant women aged 16-43 [3]. Women are specially affected by IDA due to blood loss caused by menstruation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying reflective multicriteria decision analysis to understand the value of therapeutic alternatives in the management of gestational and peripartum anaemia in Spain

Casellas

Hidalgo

García-Erce

et al. 2022

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The objective of the FeminFER project was to assess the value of ferric carboxymaltose following a multicriteria decision analysis in obstetrics and gynaecology in Spain. Methods Ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and ferrous sulphate were evaluated using the EVIDEM framework. Ten stakeholders participated to collect different perspectives. The framework was adapted considering evidence retrieved with a PICO-S search strategy and grey literature. Criteria/subcriteria were weighted by level of relevance and an evidence-based decision-making exercise was developed in each criterion; weights and scores were combined to obtain the value of intervention relative to each criterion/subcriterion, that were further combined into the Modulated Relative Benefit-Risk Balance (MRBRB). Results The most important criterion favouring FCM was Compared Efficacy/Effectiveness (0.183 ± 0.07), followed by Patient Preferences (0.059 ± 0.10). Only Direct medical costs criterion favoured FS (-0.003 ± 0.03). MRBRB favoured FCM; 0.45 ± 0.19; in a scale from -1 to + 1. Conclusions In conclusion, considering the several criteria involved in the decision-making process, participants agreed with the use of FCM according to its MRBRB.

show abstract

Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software in Healthcare Priority Setting: A Systematic Review

Cited by 21 publications

References 36 publications

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs

Applying reflective multicriteria decision analysis to understand the value of therapeutic alternatives in the management of gestational and peripartum anaemia in Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About