Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis

Marsh, Kevin; Dolan, Paul; Kempster, Jeanette; Lugon, Myriam

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fds099

Cited by 53 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of studies suggested that some of the most influential evidence on local public health decision-making was generated through local evaluation activities [40, 41, 55]. Such data meet decision-makers’ requirements around the locality of evidence and are generated within the local political context therefore meeting requirements around the transferability of findings [40, 47].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPublic health decision-making structures in England have transformed since the implementation of reforms in 2013, with responsibility for public health services and planning having shifted from the “health” boundary to local authority (LA; local government) control. This transformation may have interrupted flows of research evidence use in decision-making and introduced a new political element to public health decision-making. For generators of research evidence, understanding and responding to this new landscape and decision-makers’ evidence needs is essential.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, drawing upon four databases and undertaking manual searching and citation tracking. Included studies were English-based, published in 2010 onwards, and were focused on public health decision-making, including the utilisation or underutilisation of research evidence use, in local (regional or sub-regional) areas. All studies presented empirical findings collected through primary research methods or through the reanalysis of existing primary data.ResultsFrom a total of 903 records, 23 papers from 21 studies were deemed to be eligible and were included for further data extraction. Three clear trends in evidence use were identified: (i) the primacy of local evidence, (ii) the important role of local experts in providing evidence and knowledge, and (iii) the high value placed on local evaluation evidence despite the varying methodological rigour. Barriers to the use of research evidence included issues around access and availability of applicable research evidence, and indications that the use of evidence could be perceived as a bureaucratic process. Two new factors resulting from reforms to public health structures were identified that potentially changed existing patterns of research evidence use and decision-making requirements: (i) greater emphasis among public health practitioners on the perceived uniqueness of LA areas and structures following devolution of public health into LAs and (ii) challenges introduced in responding to higher levels of local political accountability.ConclusionsThere is a need to better understand and respond to the evidence needs of decision-makers working in public health and to work more collaboratively in developing solutions to the underutilisation of research evidence in decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0577-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 These figures are in line with those for other public health interventions such as smoking cessation and statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. 9 Economic analysis for NICE confirms that the financial outlay for surgery is justified for the NHS. 10 In patients with diabetes, for example, the cost of surgery will be recouped within three years through reduced prescriptions.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Surgerymentioning

confidence: 94%

Why the NHS should do more bariatric surgery; how much should we do?:

Welbourn

Roux

Owen-Smith

et al. 2016

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*50 Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Hofmann, 2005;Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007;Miot et al, 2012;Tony et al, 2011. *51 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Johnson et al, 2009;Kapiriri et al, 2009;Mullen, 2004. *52 Browman et al, 2008;Dionne et al, 2015;Mullen, 2004. *53 Kirby et al, 2008;Marsh et al, 2013;Wilson et al, 2007. *54 Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Golan & Hansen, 2012;Hofmann, 2005;Johnson et al, 2009;Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007;Tannahill, 2008;Thokala & Duenas, 2012;Venhorst et al, 2014;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2012b. *55 Mullen, 2004;Tannahill, 2008.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…*19 Hofmann, 2005Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *20 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Hummel et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2001;Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015;Mullen, 2004;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2009. *21 Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *22 Andreae et al, 2009;Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2015;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Kolasa et al, 2016;Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Simoens, 2014;Tony et al, 2011;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *23 Andreae et al, 2009;Duthie et al, 1999;Ghaffar, 2009;Johnson et al, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2009;Youngkong, 2014. *24 Marsh et al, 2013;…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*32 Dionne et al, 2009;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Johnson et al, 2009;Kirby et al, 2008;Mullen, 2004. *33 Marsh et al, 2013;Menon et al, 2010;Venhorst et al, 2014. *34 Browman et al, 2008;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dolan, 2010;Le Gales & Moatti, 1990;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Golan & Hansen, 2012;Gurtner, 2014;Kolasa et al, 2016;Menon et al, 2010;Miot et Alguns critérios e atributos encontrados eram muito específicos de determinadas tecnologias e foram excluídos da síntese.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Souza¹,

Santos²,

Cintra³

2018

JBES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOObjetivo: Identificar os vários critérios utilizados por agências e órgãos governamentais internacionais na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS). Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados Medline (via PubMed) e Lilacs complementada por busca na literatura cinzenta, sem restrição de idioma. Incluíram-se estudos da área de saúde que descreviam critérios e que utilizaram o método MCDA (Análise de Decisão Multicritérios) na ATS. Excluíram-se estudos que avaliaram apenas uma tecnologia específica ou contexto restrito. Os critérios foram agregados e sumarizados conforme opinião de especialistas em ATS. Resultados: Foram identificadas 3.746 publicações, sendo 27 selecionadas. Os critérios extraídos foram categorizados e seus respectivos atributos foram listados. Dez categorias foram apresentadas: benefício e risco da intervenção (4 critérios); impacto da doença (4 critérios); impacto econômico (5 critérios); contexto terapêutico da intervenção (4 critérios); qualidade e incerteza da evidência (4 critérios); implementação da intervenção (5 critérios); benefícios para a sociedade (5 critérios); benefícios para o sistema de saúde público (5 critérios); benefícios para a indústria (1 critério); e outros (3 critérios). Os atributos mais prevalentes foram: custo-efetividade; segurança e tolerabilidade; impacto orçamentário para o sistema/plano de saúde; gravidade da doença; equidade; efetividade; custo. Conclusões: Os órgãos decisores utilizam grande variedade de critérios para o MCDA, refletindo visões e valores diferentes entre as culturas. O estudo fornece informação para discussão no contexto brasileiro de uma lista mais ampla e possível padronização de critérios a serem utilizados na tomada de decisão pública ou privada sobre a incorporação de novas tecnologias. ABSTRACTObjective: To identify the various criteria used by international government agencies and bodies in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: A rapid review was conducted with a structured search in the Medline database (via PubMed) and Lilacs supplemented by a search in the gray literature, without a restriction of language. Inclusion criteria were studies in health context, describing the criteria and using the MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Analysis) method in HTA. We excluded studies that assessed only one specific technology or restricted context. The criteria were aggregated and summarized according to the opinion of HTA experts. Results: A total of 3,746 publications were identified, of which 27 were selected. The extracted criteria were categorized, and their respective

show abstract

Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis

Cited by 53 publications

References 9 publications

The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review

The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review

Why the NHS should do more bariatric surgery; how much should we do?:

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About