Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2017

01.04.2017 | Systematic Review

Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients

verfasst von: Kevin Marsh, J. Jaime Caro, Alaa Hamed, Erica Zaiser

Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Qualitative methods tend to be used to incorporate patient preferences into healthcare decision making. However, for patient preferences to be given adequate consideration by decision makers they need to be quantified. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one way to quantify and capture the patient voice. The objective of this review was to report on existing MCDAs involving patients to support the future use of MCDA to capture the patient voice.

Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in June 2014 for English-language papers with no date restriction. The following search terms were used: ‘multi-criteria decision*’, ‘multiple criteria decision*’, ‘MCDA’, ‘benefit risk assessment*’, ‘risk benefit assessment*’, ‘multicriteri* decision*’, ‘MCDM’, ‘multi-criteri* decision*’. Abstracts were included if they reported the application of MCDA to assess healthcare interventions where patients were the source of weights. Abstracts were excluded if they did not apply MCDA, such as discussions of how MCDA could be used; or did not evaluate healthcare interventions, such as MCDAs to assess the level of health need in a locality. Data were extracted on weighting method, variation in patient and expert preferences, and discussion on different weighting techniques.

Results

The review identified ten English-language studies that reported an MCDA to assess healthcare interventions and involved patients as a source of weights. These studies reported 12 applications of MCDA. Different methods of preference elicitation were employed: direct weighting in workshops; discrete choice experiment surveys; and the analytical hierarchy process using both workshops and surveys. There was significant heterogeneity in patient responses and differences between patients, who put greater weight on disease characteristics and treatment convenience, and experts, who put more weight on efficacy. The studies highlighted cognitive challenges associated with some weighting methods, though patients’ views on their ability to undertake weighting tasks was positive.

Conclusion

This review identified several recent examples of MCDA used to elicit patient preferences, which support the feasibility of using MCDA to capture the patient voice. Challenges identified included, how best to reflect the heterogeneity of patient preferences in decision making and how to manage the cognitive burden associated with some MCDA tasks.
Fußnoten
1
For instance, the following separate searches were run on EMBASE: (1) ‘multi-criteria decision’ OR ‘multi-criteria decisions’ (2) ‘multiple criteria decision’ OR ‘multiple criteria decisions’ (3) MCDA (4) ‘benefit risk assessment’ OR ‘benefit risk assessments’ OR ‘risk benefit assessment’ OR ‘risk benefit assessments’.
 
2
KM and EZ, with support from other members of the research team at Evidera—see acknowledgments.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat oude Egbrink M, Ijzerman M. The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014;2:22761.CrossRef oude Egbrink M, Ijzerman M. The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014;2:22761.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.CrossRefPubMed Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–40.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler FJ Jr, Levin CA, Sepucha KR. Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):699–706.CrossRef Fowler FJ Jr, Levin CA, Sepucha KR. Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):699–706.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):393–400.CrossRef Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):393–400.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Pollack A. Viagra for Women’ is back by FDA Panel. New York: The New York Times; 2015. Pollack A. Viagra for Women’ is back by FDA Panel. New York: The New York Times; 2015.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). National priorities for research and research agenda. 2012. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). National priorities for research and research agenda. 2012.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pilot phase to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. EMA/372554/2014—rev. 12014. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pilot phase to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. EMA/372554/2014—rev. 12014.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Perfetto EM, Burke L, Oehrlein EM, Epstein RS. Patient-focused drug development: a new direction for collaboration. Med Care. 2015;53(1):9–17.CrossRefPubMed Perfetto EM, Burke L, Oehrlein EM, Epstein RS. Patient-focused drug development: a new direction for collaboration. Med Care. 2015;53(1):9–17.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Weernink MGM, Janus SIM, van Til JA, Raisch DW, van Manen JG, Ijzerman MJ. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation method in healthcare decision making. Pharm Med. 2014;28:175–85.CrossRef Weernink MGM, Janus SIM, van Til JA, Raisch DW, van Manen JG, Ijzerman MJ. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation method in healthcare decision making. Pharm Med. 2014;28:175–85.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRefPubMed Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009. Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Office of Health Economics, London. 2011. Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Office of Health Economics, London. 2011.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.CrossRefPubMed Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG). Choice-based conjoint analysis—pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. 2014. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG). Choice-based conjoint analysis—pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. 2014.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG. Shared decision-making—transferring research into practice: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):418–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dolan JG. Shared decision-making—transferring research into practice: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):418–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Berlin: Springer; 2008.CrossRef Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Berlin: Springer; 2008.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S. Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S, editors. Alternatives for environmental evaluation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2005. De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S. Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S, editors. Alternatives for environmental evaluation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2005.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Hummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, van Rossum W, Ijzerman MJ. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):635–44.CrossRefPubMed Hummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, van Rossum W, Ijzerman MJ. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):635–44.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Working paper no. 7. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. 2011. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Working paper no. 7. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. 2011.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Broekhuizen H. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in an MCDA model for quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Netherlands: University of Twente; 2012. Broekhuizen H. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in an MCDA model for quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Netherlands: University of Twente; 2012.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1163–9.CrossRefPubMed Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1163–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hummel MJ, Volz F, van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.CrossRefPubMed Hummel MJ, Volz F, van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(5):499–507.CrossRefPubMed Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(5):499–507.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—Emerging Good Practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37.CrossRefPubMed Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—Emerging Good Practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients
verfasst von
Kevin Marsh
J. Jaime Caro
Alaa Hamed
Erica Zaiser
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe