Alexander Moreno-Calderón1, Thai S Tong2, Praveen Thokala2. 1. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Carrera 45 # 26-85, Bogotá, Colombia. jaiamorenocal@unal.edu.co. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify studies using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) software tools to support health prioritisation processes and describe the technical capabilities of the MCDA software tools identified. METHODS: First, a systematic literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit and Cochrane databases in July 2019 to identify studies that have used MCDA software for priority setting in health-related problems. Second, the MCDA software tools found in the review were downloaded (full versions, where freely available, and trial versions otherwise) and tested to extract their key technical characteristics. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, from which seven different software tools, 1000minds®, M-MACBETH, Socio Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR), Strategic Multi-Attribute Ranking Tool (SMART), Visual PROMETHEE, EVIDEM and the Prioritisation Framework, were identified. These software tools differed in terms of the operating systems (including web interface), MCDA technique(s) available for use, visualisation features, and the capability to perform Value for Money (VfM) and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MCDA software in prioritisation processes has a number of advantages such as inclusion of several types of stakeholders and the ability to analyse a greater number of alternatives and criteria and perform real-time sensitivity analyses. Proprietary software (i.e. software with licensing fees) seemed to have more features than freely available software. However, this field is still developing, with only a few studies where MCDA software was used to support health priority setting and opportunity costs not explicitly captured in many software tools.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify studies using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) software tools to support health prioritisation processes and describe the technical capabilities of the MCDA software tools identified. METHODS: First, a systematic literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit and Cochrane databases in July 2019 to identify studies that have used MCDA software for priority setting in health-related problems. Second, the MCDA software tools found in the review were downloaded (full versions, where freely available, and trial versions otherwise) and tested to extract their key technical characteristics. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, from which seven different software tools, 1000minds®, M-MACBETH, Socio Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR), Strategic Multi-Attribute Ranking Tool (SMART), Visual PROMETHEE, EVIDEM and the Prioritisation Framework, were identified. These software tools differed in terms of the operating systems (including web interface), MCDA technique(s) available for use, visualisation features, and the capability to perform Value for Money (VfM) and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MCDA software in prioritisation processes has a number of advantages such as inclusion of several types of stakeholders and the ability to analyse a greater number of alternatives and criteria and perform real-time sensitivity analyses. Proprietary software (i.e. software with licensing fees) seemed to have more features than freely available software. However, this field is still developing, with only a few studies where MCDA software was used to support health priority setting and opportunity costs not explicitly captured in many software tools.
Authors: Rob Baltussen; Maarten Paul Maria Jansen; Leon Bijlmakers; Janneke Grutters; Anouck Kluytmans; Rob P Reuzel; Marcia Tummers; Gert Jan van der Wilt Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Valerie Hongoh; Pascal Michel; Pierre Gosselin; Karim Samoura; André Ravel; Céline Campagna; Hassane Djibrilla Cissé; Jean-Philippe Waaub Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Talita D C Frazão; Ana F A Dos Santos; Deyse G G Camilo; João Florêncio da Costa Júnior; Ricardo P de Souza Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 2.796