Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?

Baltussen, Rob; Asbroek, Augustinus Ha ten; Koolman, Xander; Shrestha, Ninadini; Bhattarai, Prakash C.; Niessen, Louis

doi:10.1093/heapol/czm010

Cited by 81 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity characteristics (i.e. attributes) that were defined in past studies [8,23,24]. Attributes were selected through two literature reviews [25,26] and adaptations proposed in focus groups of health programmers and experts.…”

Section: Discrete Choice Experiments and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 AbstractBackground: In addition to cost-effectiveness, national guidelines often include other factors in reimbursement decisions. However, weights attached to these are rarely quantified, thus decisions may strongly depend on decision-maker preferences.Objective: To explore the preferences of policymakers and healthcare professionals involved in the decision-making process for different efficiency and equity attributes of interventions and analyse crosscountry differences.Method: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were carried out in Austria, Hungary, and Norway with policymakers and other professionals working in the health industry (N=153 respondents). Interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity attributes (severity of disease, target age of the population and willingness to subsidize others, potential number of beneficiaries, individual health benefit, and cost-effectiveness). Parameter estimates from the DCE are used to calculate the probability of choosing a healthcare intervention with different characteristics, and to rank different equity and efficiency attributes according to their importance.Results: In all three countries, cost-effectiveness, individual health benefit and severity of the disease are significant and equally important determinants of decisions. All countries show preferences for interventions targeting young and middle age population compared to those targeting population over 60. However, decision-makers in Austria and Hungary show preferences more oriented to efficiency than equity, while those in Norway show equal preferences for equity and efficiency attributes.Conclusion: We find that factors other than cost-effectiveness seem to play an equally important role in decision-making. We also find evidence of cross-country differences in the weight of efficiency and equity attributes.

show abstract

Section: Discrete Choice Experiments and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*2 Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Duthie et al, 1999;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Venhorst et al, 2014;Youngkong et al, 2009. *3 Dionne et al, 2015Dolan, 2010;Duthie et al, 1999;Le Gales & Moatti, 1990;Gibson et al, 2006;Gurtner, 2014;Hilgerink et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2009;Lasry et al, 2011;Mullen, 2004;Ritrovato et al, 2015;Tannahill, 2008;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2012a;Youngkong et al, 2012b. *4 de Greef-van der Sandt et al, 2016;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*19 Hofmann, 2005Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *20 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Hummel et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2001;Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015;Mullen, 2004;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2009. *21 Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *22 Andreae et al, 2009;Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2015;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Kolasa et al, 2016;Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Simoens, 2014;Tony et al, 2011;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *23 Andreae et al, 2009;Duthie et al, 1999;Ghaffar, 2009;Johnson et al, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2009;Youngkong, 2014. *24 Marsh et al, 2013;…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*21 Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *22 Andreae et al, 2009;Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2015;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Kolasa et al, 2016;Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Simoens, 2014;Tony et al, 2011;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *23 Andreae et al, 2009;Duthie et al, 1999;Ghaffar, 2009;Johnson et al, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2009;Youngkong, 2014. *24 Marsh et al, 2013;Youngkong et al, 2012b. *25 Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Hofmann, 2005;Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007. *26 Andreae et al, 2009;Dionne et al, 2015;Johnson et al, 2009;Kirby et al, 2008;…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*30 Andreae et al, 2009;Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Diaby & Lachaine, 2011;Ghaffar, 2009;Gibson et al, 2006;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Gurtner, 2014;Hailey, 2009;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Kolasa et al, 2016;Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Lasry et al, 2011;Lopert, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Mullen, 2004;Tannahill, 2008;Thokala & Duenas, 2012;Tony et al, 2011;University of York, 2002;Venhorst et al, 2014;Youngkong et al, 2009;Youngkong et al, 2012a. *31 Andreae et al, 2009;Lasry et al, 2011;Lopert, 2009;Youngkong et al, 2009. *32 Dionne et al, 2009;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Johnson et al, 2009;Kirby et al, 2008;Mullen, 2004. *33 Marsh et al, 2013;Menon et al, 2010;Venhorst et al, 2014.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Souza¹,

Santos²,

Cintra³

2018

JBES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOObjetivo: Identificar os vários critérios utilizados por agências e órgãos governamentais internacionais na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS). Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados Medline (via PubMed) e Lilacs complementada por busca na literatura cinzenta, sem restrição de idioma. Incluíram-se estudos da área de saúde que descreviam critérios e que utilizaram o método MCDA (Análise de Decisão Multicritérios) na ATS. Excluíram-se estudos que avaliaram apenas uma tecnologia específica ou contexto restrito. Os critérios foram agregados e sumarizados conforme opinião de especialistas em ATS. Resultados: Foram identificadas 3.746 publicações, sendo 27 selecionadas. Os critérios extraídos foram categorizados e seus respectivos atributos foram listados. Dez categorias foram apresentadas: benefício e risco da intervenção (4 critérios); impacto da doença (4 critérios); impacto econômico (5 critérios); contexto terapêutico da intervenção (4 critérios); qualidade e incerteza da evidência (4 critérios); implementação da intervenção (5 critérios); benefícios para a sociedade (5 critérios); benefícios para o sistema de saúde público (5 critérios); benefícios para a indústria (1 critério); e outros (3 critérios). Os atributos mais prevalentes foram: custo-efetividade; segurança e tolerabilidade; impacto orçamentário para o sistema/plano de saúde; gravidade da doença; equidade; efetividade; custo. Conclusões: Os órgãos decisores utilizam grande variedade de critérios para o MCDA, refletindo visões e valores diferentes entre as culturas. O estudo fornece informação para discussão no contexto brasileiro de uma lista mais ampla e possível padronização de critérios a serem utilizados na tomada de decisão pública ou privada sobre a incorporação de novas tecnologias. ABSTRACTObjective: To identify the various criteria used by international government agencies and bodies in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: A rapid review was conducted with a structured search in the Medline database (via PubMed) and Lilacs supplemented by a search in the gray literature, without a restriction of language. Inclusion criteria were studies in health context, describing the criteria and using the MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Analysis) method in HTA. We excluded studies that assessed only one specific technology or restricted context. The criteria were aggregated and summarized according to the opinion of HTA experts. Results: A total of 3,746 publications were identified, of which 27 were selected. The extracted criteria were categorized, and their respective

show abstract

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Statins (Lipid Lowering Agents): A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Wanishayakorn

Ngorsuraches

2015

J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Benefit‐risk assessment (BRA) concept has been increasingly used in drug evaluation, and multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one of the recommended BRA tools. The objective of this study was to assess benefits and risks of statins (lipid lowering agents) by MCDA, based on patient's, clinical expert's and policymaker's perspectives. Methods Benefit and risk criteria and levels of statins were identified from literatures and interviews of stakeholders. SWING weight technique, which asked stakeholders to choose the most preferred criterion if they change its level from minimum to maximum, was used to measure the weight of each criterion. There were six patients, six clinical experts and 10 policymaker groups. Each group had four members and was asked to discuss and make consensus for giving their importance scores to four benefit and risk criteria (stroke event reduction, myocardial infarction event reduction, myalgia and hepatotoxicity). The collected scores were used to calculate the criteria weights. The criterion weights were multiplied by each statin's criterion scores to calculate the total weighted score of each statin. Total weighted scores were used to rank the order of statins, which reflected the preference order of statins in each perspective. Results From four perspectives (patients, experts, policymakers and overall), the most and least important criteria were myocardial infarction reduction and myalgia, respectively. Patients and experts agreed on the order of importance for stroke reduction and hepatotoxicity, but policymakers had a different order. From expert, policymaker and overall perspectives, atorvastatin had the highest total weighted score, followed by simvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin and rosuvastatin. However, patient group agreed only with the orders of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and rosuvastatin. Conclusions Atorvastatin was the most preferred statin across all perspectives. This study presented the feasibility of applying MCDA in drug evaluation process and encouraged the engagement of multi‐stakeholders in decision‐making process. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?

Abstract: This explorative analysis suggests that the lung health programme is among the priorities in Nepal when taking into account a range of relevant criteria for priority setting. The multi-criteria approach can be an important step forward to rational priority setting in developing countries.

Cited by 81 publications

References 21 publications

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Statins (Lipid Lowering Agents): A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About