Literature DB >> 22376143

Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.

Jacqui Miot1, Monika Wagner, Hanane Khoury, Donna Rindress, Mireille M Goetghebeur.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systematic and transparent approaches to priority setting are needed, particularly in low-resource settings, to produce decisions that are sound and acceptable to stakeholders. The EVIDEM framework brings together Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by proposing a comprehensive set of decision criteria together with standardized processes to support decisionmaking. The objective of the study was to field test the framework for decisionmaking on a screening test by a private health plan in South Africa.
METHODS: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening was selected by the health plan for this field test. An HTA report structured by decision criterion (14 criteria organized in the MCDA matrix and 4 contextual criteria) was produced based on a literature review and input from the health plan. During workshop sessions, committee members 1) weighted each MCDA decision criterion to express their individual perspectives, and 2) to appraise LBC, assigned scores to each MCDA criterion on the basis of the by-criterion HTA report.Committee members then considered the potential impacts of four contextual criteria on the use of LBC in the context of their health plan. Feedback on the framework and process was collected through discussion and from a questionnaire.
RESULTS: For 9 of the MCDA matrix decision criteria, 89% or more of committee members thought they should always be considered in decisionmaking. Greatest weights were given to the criteria "Budget impact", "Cost-effectiveness" and "Completeness and consistency of reporting evidence". When appraising LBC for cervical cancer screening, the committee assigned the highest scores to "Relevance and validity of evidence" and "Disease severity". Combination of weights and scores yielded a mean MCDA value estimate of 46% (SD 7%) of the potential maximum value. Overall, the committee felt the framework brought greater clarity to the decisionmaking process and was easily adaptable to different types of health interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 22376143      PMCID: PMC3330006          DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc        ISSN: 1478-7547


  33 in total

1.  Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion?

Authors:  Penelope M Mullen
Journal:  Health Serv Manage Res       Date:  2004-02

2.  Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis.

Authors:  David J Nutt; Leslie A King; Lawrence D Phillips
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals.

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Iestyn Williams; Shirley McIver
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy by Sean R. Tunis.

Authors:  David Eddy
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Screening for cervical cancer in an African setting.

Authors:  H S Cronjé; E Beyer
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 3.561

Review 6.  Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--a review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Lauri Vuorenkoski; Hanna Toiviainen; Elina Hemminki
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 7.  Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy.

Authors:  Irfan Dhalla; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences.

Authors:  Rob Baltussen; Sitapon Youngkong; Francesco Paolucci; Louis Niessen
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Trends in cervical cancer mortality in South Africa.

Authors:  R S Bailie; C E Selvey; D Bourne; D Bradshaw
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal.

Authors:  Mireille M Goetghebeur; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Randy J Levitt; Lonny J Erickson; Donna Rindress
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology.

Authors:  Georges Adunlin; Vakaramoko Diaby; Alberto J Montero; Hong Xiao
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Kevin Marsh; Tereza Lanitis; David Neasham; Panagiotis Orfanos; Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada.

Authors:  Michèle Tony; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Donna Rindress; Tina Papastavros; Paul Oh; Mireille M Goetghebeur
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study.

Authors:  Philip Wahlster; Mireille Goetghebeur; Sandra Schaller; Christine Kriza; Peter Kolominsky-Rabas
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2015-04-28

5.  Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework.

Authors:  Janine van Til; Catharina Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Marijke Lieferink; James Dolan; Mireille Goetghebeur
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2014-11-18

Review 6.  'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Ian Cromwell; Stuart J Peacock; Craig Mitton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  A systematic review of health technology assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications.

Authors:  Christine Kriza; Jill Hanass-Hancock; Emmanuel Ankrah Odame; Nicola Deghaye; Rashid Aman; Philip Wahlster; Mayra Marin; Nicodemus Gebe; Willis Akhwale; Isabelle Wachsmuth; Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2014-12-02

8.  Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness.

Authors:  Rob Baltussen; Maarten P Jansen; Evelinn Mikkelsen; Noor Tromp; Jan Hontelez; Leon Bijlmakers; Gert Jan Van der Wilt
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2016-11-01

Review 9.  Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).

Authors:  Philip Wahlster; Mireille Goetghebeur; Christine Kriza; Charlotte Niederländer; Peter Kolominsky-Rabas
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation.

Authors:  Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Jacob Willet; Donna Rindress; Mireille Goetghebeur
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.