Literature DB >> 28408011

Determining Criteria and Weights for Prioritizing Health Technologies Based on the Preferences of the General Population: A New Zealand Pilot Study.

Trudy Sullivan1, Paul Hansen2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The use of multicriteria decision analysis for health technology prioritization depends on decision-making criteria and weights according to their relative importance. We report on a methodology for determining criteria and weights that was developed and piloted in New Zealand and enables extensive participation by members of the general population.
METHODS: Stimulated by a preliminary ranking exercise that involved prioritizing 14 diverse technologies, six focus groups discussed what matters to people when thinking about technologies that should be funded. These discussions informed the specification of criteria related to technologies' benefits for use in a discrete choice survey designed to generate weights for each individual participant as well as mean weights. A random sample of 3218 adults was invited to participate. To check test-retest reliability, a subsample completed the survey twice. Cluster analysis was performed to identify participants with similar patterns of weights.
RESULTS: Six benefits-related criteria were distilled from the focus group discussions and included in the discrete choice survey, which was completed by 322 adults (10% response rate). Most participants (85%) found the survey easy to understand, and the survey exhibited test-retest reliability. The cluster analysis revealed that participant weights are related more to idiosyncratic personal preferences than to demographic and background characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodology enables extensive participation by members of the general population, for whom it is both acceptable and reliable. Generating weights for each participant allows the heterogeneity of individual preferences, and the extent to which they are related to demographic and background characteristics, to be tested.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice experiment; health technology prioritization; multicriteria decision analysis; public consultation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28408011     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  3 in total

1.  Evaluating New Zealanders' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making: Trade-Offs between Treatments for Rare and Common Conditions.

Authors:  Linda Yamoah; Nick Dragojlovic; Alesha Smith; Larry D Lynd; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 4.981

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

Authors:  Alexander Moreno-Calderón; Thai S Tong; Praveen Thokala
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources: A Comparative Study From Jordan.

Authors:  Muhannad H Yousef; Yazan N Alhalaseh; Razan Mansour; Hala Sultan; Naseem Alnadi; Ahmad Maswadeh; Yasmeen M Al-Sheble; Raghda Sinokrot; Khawlah Ammar; Asem Mansour; Maysa Al-Hussaini
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-01-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.