Synthesis of relevant information around non-core domains to support Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for decision making.

GMS health innovation and technologies Pub Date : 2024-03-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3205/hta000139
Juan Carlos Bayón-Yusta, Asun Gutiérrez-Iglesias, Lorea Galnares-Cordero, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
{"title":"Synthesis of relevant information around non-core domains to support Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for decision making.","authors":"Juan Carlos Bayón-Yusta, Asun Gutiérrez-Iglesias, Lorea Galnares-Cordero, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea","doi":"10.3205/hta000139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Countries fundamentally base macro and micro decision making in the field of health on economic considerations, the budgetary impact of technologies being a major criterion. Nevertheless, the value of the technology of interest and its dimensions are more complex if we seek to take decisions based on the value itself. The use of structured and explicit approaches that require the assessment of multiple criteria that reflect the dimensions of this value may significantly improve the quality of the decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a complementary decision-making tool that is able to systematically incorporate dimensions or domains such as ethical, organisational, legal, environmental and social considerations, as well as costs and benefits of medical interventions, together with the distinct perspectives of the interested parties. The objective of this article is to propose the implementation of analysis of non-core domains, in reports of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies/units. To assess the scientific evidence on MCDA techniques a systematic review was conducted using structured searches in biomedical databases and websites of various HTA organisations. A consensus group was held using the nominal group technique and involving users of healthcare services, providers, managers and academics. Complementary, a survey was sent to HTA agencies to ascertain the degree of implementation of MCDA in their methods. 42 articles reporting the use of non-core criteria for the assessment of health technologies were included in the analysis. From these articles, a total of 216 non-core criteria were retrieved and categorised into domains by the researchers, and of these, 56 were classified as socioeconomic, 59 as organisational, 10 as legal, 8 as environmental and 47 as ethical, while 36 were considered to relate to other domains. The consensus group, based on the 216 non-core criteria obtained from the systematic review, proposed, and defined 26 criteria that participants considered necessary for decision making in healthcare. The consensus group did not consider that any of the domains should be given more weight than others or that any individual criteria should dominate. These approaches can serve as a framework of reference for a well-structured systematic discussion concerning the basis of individual criteria and the evidence supporting them.</p>","PeriodicalId":92900,"journal":{"name":"GMS health innovation and technologies","volume":"18 ","pages":"Doc02"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11035910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS health innovation and technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/hta000139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Countries fundamentally base macro and micro decision making in the field of health on economic considerations, the budgetary impact of technologies being a major criterion. Nevertheless, the value of the technology of interest and its dimensions are more complex if we seek to take decisions based on the value itself. The use of structured and explicit approaches that require the assessment of multiple criteria that reflect the dimensions of this value may significantly improve the quality of the decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a complementary decision-making tool that is able to systematically incorporate dimensions or domains such as ethical, organisational, legal, environmental and social considerations, as well as costs and benefits of medical interventions, together with the distinct perspectives of the interested parties. The objective of this article is to propose the implementation of analysis of non-core domains, in reports of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies/units. To assess the scientific evidence on MCDA techniques a systematic review was conducted using structured searches in biomedical databases and websites of various HTA organisations. A consensus group was held using the nominal group technique and involving users of healthcare services, providers, managers and academics. Complementary, a survey was sent to HTA agencies to ascertain the degree of implementation of MCDA in their methods. 42 articles reporting the use of non-core criteria for the assessment of health technologies were included in the analysis. From these articles, a total of 216 non-core criteria were retrieved and categorised into domains by the researchers, and of these, 56 were classified as socioeconomic, 59 as organisational, 10 as legal, 8 as environmental and 47 as ethical, while 36 were considered to relate to other domains. The consensus group, based on the 216 non-core criteria obtained from the systematic review, proposed, and defined 26 criteria that participants considered necessary for decision making in healthcare. The consensus group did not consider that any of the domains should be given more weight than others or that any individual criteria should dominate. These approaches can serve as a framework of reference for a well-structured systematic discussion concerning the basis of individual criteria and the evidence supporting them.

综合非核心领域的相关信息,支持用于决策的多标准决策分析(MCDA)。
从根本上说,各国在卫生领域的宏观和微观决策都是基于经济考虑,技术对预算的影响是一个主要标准。然而,如果我们试图根据价值本身做出决策,相关技术的价值及其层面就会变得更加复杂。使用结构化和明确的方法,要求对反映该价值各方面的多重标准进行评估,可大大提高决策质量。多标准决策分析(MCDA)是一种辅助决策工具,能够系统地纳入伦理、组织、法律、环境和社会因素以及医疗干预的成本和效益等维度或领域,同时纳入相关各方的不同观点。本文旨在建议在卫生技术评估(HTA)机构/单位的报告中对非核心领域进行分析。为了评估有关 MCDA 技术的科学证据,我们在生物医学数据库和各种 HTA 组织的网站上进行了结构化搜索,并进行了系统性回顾。采用名义小组技术成立了一个共识小组,成员包括医疗服务使用者、提供者、管理者和学者。作为补充,还向 HTA 机构发送了一份调查问卷,以确定其方法中 MCDA 的实施程度。42 篇报道使用非核心标准评估医疗技术的文章被纳入分析范围。从这些文章中,研究人员共检索到 216 条非核心标准,并将其归类为若干领域,其中 56 条归类为社会经济领域,59 条归类为组织领域,10 条归类为法律领域,8 条归类为环境领域,47 条归类为道德领域,36 条被认为与其他领域有关。共识小组根据从系统综述中获得的 216 项非核心标准,提出并定义了 26 项标准,与会者认为这些标准是医疗决策所必需的。共识小组并不认为任何一个领域的权重应高于其他领域,也不认为任何一个标准应占据主导地位。这些方法可作为一个参考框架,用于对个别标准的依据及其支持证据进行结构合理的系统讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信