Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Reddy, Brian P.; Kelly, Michael P.; Thokala, Praveen; Walters, Stephen J; Duenas, Alejandra

doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2014.07.003

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Innovative approaches for the assessment and management of MTs use a combination of HTA and operations research methods, specifically multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Diaby, Campbell, & Goeree, 2013;Endrei, Molics, & Agoston, 2014; Padilla-Garrido, Aguado-Correa, Cortijo-Gallego, & López-Camacho, 2014;Reddy, Kelly, Thokala, Walters, & Duenas, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty

Ivlev

Vacek

Kneppo

2015

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty

Ivlev

Vacek

Kneppo

2015

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, we chose a simple approach. Previous experience had suggested that the analytic hierarchy process may be too slow moving for such a group (Reddy et al 2014) and was therefore not used. The total scores were calculated for each intervention, using a simple weighted sum method, which was then used to prioritise among the interventions.…”

Section: Choice Of the Mcda Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health

Reddy

Thokala

Iliff

et al. 2016

EURO Journal on Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable death in the Uited Kingdom (UK) and is a major cause of coronary heart disease, some cancers, and respiratory disease, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. At the time of initiating the project, smoking prevalence had not changed across four local government areas in South Yorkshire for some years. Most spending had been focussed on helping people quit, an intervention where there was clear evidence of effectiveness. A number of changes occurred in public health structures and targets, requiring a reappraisal of the range of interventions offered. This was challenging due to a lack of clear evidence for some of the areas' alternative interventions. The aim of this paper is to describe the use of a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to support the health priority setting in local authorities to reduce smoking prevalence. There were three phases to this process: (1) problem structuring; (2) the multiple criteria decision analysis; (3) and using the MCDA results to influence decision making at the local government level. The MCDA approach was used to collate information in a consistent and transparent manner, using expert, stakeholder and public opinion to fill known gaps in evidence. Fifteen interventions (such as stop smoking support services, smoke-free spaces, communication and marketing exercises, and increased investment in enforcement) were ranked across eight criteria (relating to reductions in prevalence across relevant groups, as well as aspects relating to equity and feasibility), allowing a range of relevant concerns to be incorporated. Subsequent steps were taken to translate the results of this stage into workable policy options. The results differed significantly from current practice. Sensitivity analysis showed that the findings were robust to changes in preference weights. These results informed subsequent changes to the interventions offered across the four boroughs. The ability of MCDA techniques to incorporate data and both qualitative and quantitative judgements in a formal manner mean that they are well suited to support public health decision making, where evidence is often only partially available and many policies are value driven. MCDA methods, if used, should be chosen carefully based on their resource/time constraints, scientific validity, and the significance and broader context of the decision problem.Keywords MCDA Á Public health policy Á Health economics Á Tobacco interventions Á Evidence-based decision making BackgroundSmoking is the single biggest cause of preventable death in the United Kingdom (UK). Smoking is a major cause of coronary heart disease, some cancers and respiratory disease, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These diseases have the greatest impact on the least well off in society and it is estimated that up to half the difference in premature death between the most and least affluent groups is explained by different patterns in smoking (Jarvis and Wardle 1999). Despi...

show abstract

“…The general characteristics of the 10 distinct approaches for prioritizing guideline topics described in the papers are reported in Table 1. Most of the papers (7 out of 10, 70%) focused on guidelines for clinical practice (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18); one paper proposed a prioritization approach that is applicable to the clinical, public health and health systems fields (8); and the two remaining papers proposed prioritization approaches respectively for World Health Organization (WHO) healthcare recommendations (19) and for public health guidelines (20). All of the identified prioritization approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics; none on prioritizing guideline recommendation questions or outcomes.…”

Section: General Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reviewing the grey literature (e.g., databases of guideline developing organizations) (9 out of 10, 90%) (8,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19), and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%) (8,(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Patient and public involvement was reported to be used in the development of only one prioritization approach (16).…”

Section: Development Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review

El‐Harakeh

Morsi

Fadlallah

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize the topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study. Results Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified prioritization approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%), and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed. Conclusions We described 10 approaches in the development of guidelines. There is a need to assess effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.

show abstract

Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty

Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty

Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About