Georges Adunlin1, Vakaramoko Diaby1, Alberto J Montero2, Hong Xiao1. 1. Division of Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. 2. Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the development and application of alternative decision-making frameworks within health care, including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Even though the literature includes several reviews on MCDA methods, applications of MCDA in oncology are lacking. AIM: The aim of this paper is to discuss a rationale for the use of MCDA in oncology. In this context, the following research question emerged: How can MCDA be used to develop a clinical decision support tool in oncology? METHODS: In this paper, a brief background on decision making is presented, followed by an overview of MCDA methods and process. The paper discusses some applications of MCDA, proposes research opportunities in the context of oncology and presents an illustrative example of how MCDA can be applied to oncology. FINDINGS: Decisions in oncology involve trade-offs between possible benefits and harms. MCDA can help analyse trade-off preferences. A wide range of MCDA methods exist. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Choosing the appropriate method varies depending on the source and nature of information used to inform decision making. The literature review identified eight studies. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most often used method in the identified studies. CONCLUSION: Overall, MCDA appears to be a promising tool that can be used to assist clinical decision making in oncology. Nonetheless, field testing is desirable before MCDA becomes an established decision-making tool in this field.
BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the development and application of alternative decision-making frameworks within health care, including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Even though the literature includes several reviews on MCDA methods, applications of MCDA in oncology are lacking. AIM: The aim of this paper is to discuss a rationale for the use of MCDA in oncology. In this context, the following research question emerged: How can MCDA be used to develop a clinical decision support tool in oncology? METHODS: In this paper, a brief background on decision making is presented, followed by an overview of MCDA methods and process. The paper discusses some applications of MCDA, proposes research opportunities in the context of oncology and presents an illustrative example of how MCDA can be applied to oncology. FINDINGS: Decisions in oncology involve trade-offs between possible benefits and harms. MCDA can help analyse trade-off preferences. A wide range of MCDA methods exist. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Choosing the appropriate method varies depending on the source and nature of information used to inform decision making. The literature review identified eight studies. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most often used method in the identified studies. CONCLUSION: Overall, MCDA appears to be a promising tool that can be used to assist clinical decision making in oncology. Nonetheless, field testing is desirable before MCDA becomes an established decision-making tool in this field.
Authors: Seetharaman Hariharan; Prasanta K Dey; Deryk R Chen; Harley S L Moseley; Areti Y Kumar Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; France Légaré; Richard Thomson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-10-05
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Mitch Dowsett; John F Forbes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Jim Ingle; Alan Coates; John Forbes; Judith Bliss; Marc Buyse; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Marco Colleoni; Charles Coombes; Claire Snowdon; Michael Gnant; Raimund Jakesz; Manfred Kaufmann; Francesco Boccardo; Jon Godwin; Christina Davies; Richard Peto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.405