Publication: Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward
Issued Date
2019-11-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15244733
10983015
10983015
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85073993562
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Value in Health. Vol.22, No.11 (2019), 1283-1288
Suggested Citation
Rob Baltussen, Kevin Marsh, Praveen Thokala, Vakaramoko Diaby, Hector Castro, Irina Cleemput, Martina Garau, Georgi Iskrov, Alireza Olyaeemanesh, Andrew Mirelman, Mohammedreza Mobinizadeh, Alec Morton, Michele Tringali, Janine van Til, Joice Valentim, Monika Wagner, Sitaporn Youngkong, Vladimir Zah, Agnes Toll, Maarten Jansen, Leon Bijlmakers, Wija Oortwijn, Henk Broekhuizen Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. Value in Health. Vol.22, No.11 (2019), 1283-1288. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/51350
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward
Author(s)
Rob Baltussen
Kevin Marsh
Praveen Thokala
Vakaramoko Diaby
Hector Castro
Irina Cleemput
Martina Garau
Georgi Iskrov
Alireza Olyaeemanesh
Andrew Mirelman
Mohammedreza Mobinizadeh
Alec Morton
Michele Tringali
Janine van Til
Joice Valentim
Monika Wagner
Sitaporn Youngkong
Vladimir Zah
Agnes Toll
Maarten Jansen
Leon Bijlmakers
Wija Oortwijn
Henk Broekhuizen
Kevin Marsh
Praveen Thokala
Vakaramoko Diaby
Hector Castro
Irina Cleemput
Martina Garau
Georgi Iskrov
Alireza Olyaeemanesh
Andrew Mirelman
Mohammedreza Mobinizadeh
Alec Morton
Michele Tringali
Janine van Til
Joice Valentim
Monika Wagner
Sitaporn Youngkong
Vladimir Zah
Agnes Toll
Maarten Jansen
Leon Bijlmakers
Wija Oortwijn
Henk Broekhuizen
Other Contributor(s)
Evidera, United Kingdom
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre
Medical University of Plovdiv
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
University of Strathclyde
University of Twente
University of York
Mahidol University
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Management Sciences for Health
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
University of Sheffield
Office of Health Economics
LASER Analytica
ZRx Outcomes Research Inc
Institute for Rare Diseases
Regione Lombardia
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre
Medical University of Plovdiv
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
University of Strathclyde
University of Twente
University of York
Mahidol University
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Management Sciences for Health
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
University of Sheffield
Office of Health Economics
LASER Analytica
ZRx Outcomes Research Inc
Institute for Rare Diseases
Regione Lombardia
Abstract
© 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.