Assessing The Value Of Treatments For Rare Diseases Using An Mcda-Based Approach: Methodological And Ethical Foundations Of Criteria Selection And Framework Development

Wagner, Monika; Khoury, Hanane; Willet, Jacob; Rindress, Donna; Goetghebeur, Mireille

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.046

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stakeholders were invited to participate in the problem structuring phase to define the criteria. When data was collected through surveys (Wagner et al, ; Wahlster, Goetghebeur, Schaller, Kriza, & Kolominsky‐Rabas, ; Mobinizadeh, Raeissi, Nasiripour, Olyaeemanesh, & Tabibi, ; Poulin et al, ), the number of participants (when available) was relatively significant (11, 30, and 54). One study (Wanishayakorn and Ngorsuraches, ) interviewed three stakeholders to gather their respective viewpoints.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare decision‐making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review

Glaize

Duenas²,

Martinelly

et al. 2019

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to review applications of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to provide structure for and practical insights on how MCDA methods are applied in different healthcare areas. Four databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and PubMed) were searched from 1980 to February 7, 2018. A scoping review was performed to outline the most frequently applied MCDA methods, in which only case studies were considered, as the objective was to assess the applications of MCDA methods. Seventy case studies were selected. The review showed that the first real-life application was published in 1990. With regard to areas of application, three aspects were analysed: type of health services (public or private), type of intervention (preventive, diagnostic, or treatment), and healthcare area (policymaking; resource allocation; health technology assessment; pharmaceutics; and hospital, clinical, or patient level). Data revealed that MCDA was principally used in public health services (n = 59). Three types of interventions were identified: prevention (n = 36), diagnosis (n = 32), and treatment (n = 2). An MCDA process of application was then followed to provide practical insights. During the problem-structuring phase, results showed that processes for selecting stakeholders and criteria differed among healthcare areas. For model building, authors preferred value measurement methods and especially the analytical hierarchy process. Authors of the 70 case studies included and confirmed the usefulness of MCDA in different healthcare contexts.The stakeholders, criteria, and MCDA methods chosen differ from one study to another, answering different research objectives in different healthcare areas. This scoping review highlights the importance of each MCDA step (using Belton and Stewart's framework), from problem structuring (including the selection of stakeholders) to the model building phase (encompassing the selection of the appropriate MCDA method). We recommend structured and justified analysis so that decision makers and stakeholders can feel confident during the application process in order to make final decisions more meaningful. Further work is needed to help researchers and decision makers when choosing a suitable MCDA method.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare decision‐making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review

Glaize

Duenas²,

Martinelly

et al. 2019

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, there are studies regarding the multi-criteria selection and evaluation of possible diagnosis and treatment options of various diseases. Among the ones published in the last five years; Wagner et al [3] tried to develop a framework in order to assess the value of the rare disease treatments, and organized the quantitative criteria of the framework into a hierarchical MCDM model. Ijabi et al [4] proposed a method for evaluating and selecting the most suitable detoxification method, based on the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure

Sir

2019

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic pain is one of the most common complaints of cancer patients. There are many pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities used for the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, non-pharmacological interventions are preferred because of potential side effects in cases resistant to medical therapy that require a dose increase or potent drug use. In most real-life situations, the decision on which technique to choose is based on the clinical but subjective decisions of the practitioners. This study aimed to find out the best non-pharmacological treatment option for patients with chronic cancer pain by following a rational and reasonable approach. Methods: Since the evaluation of treatment options requires to make a comparison between a number of alternatives in the light of certain criteria, we utilize the order relation analysis (G1-method) which is a method for determining the weights based on the improved Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method uses the relative importances on prioritizing the four criteria and eight sub-criteria defined by the experts of three pain physicians, one oncologist, and one oncologic surgeon. Four alternatives are then compared according to the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) using the verbal subjective judgments of the practitioners. Results:Obtained results indicate that the general medical condition of the patient and the stage of the cancer are the essential factors in the selection of the treatment method. It is followed by the extent of the pain and the level of evidence, respectively. According to the evaluations performed, spinal port and splanchnic nerve radiofrequency thermocoagulation treatments are the first and second priority methods for pain treatment, respectively, compared to lumbar epidural catheter and celiac plexus block. Conclusions: The results of this study emphasize the need to integrate critical criteria into the decision-making process objectively. This is the first study in which multi-criteria decision-making tools are used in the evaluation and selection of pain management methods in cancer patients.

show abstract

The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

show abstract

Assessing The Value Of Treatments For Rare Diseases Using An Mcda-Based Approach: Methodological And Ethical Foundations Of Criteria Selection And Framework Development

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Healthcare decision‐making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review

Healthcare decision‐making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review

Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure

The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About