Real-world application of an integrated MCDA-economic framework in continence care technology: a hospital-based case study.

IF 0.7 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment Pub Date : 2026-10-06 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.33393/grhta.2026.3828
Gianpaolo Franzoso, Novella Piazzetta, Giorgia Zorzetto, Mirsad Pasalic, Valentina Ceron, Flavia Damiano, Cristina Tridello, Marina Coppola
{"title":"Real-world application of an integrated MCDA-economic framework in continence care technology: a hospital-based case study.","authors":"Gianpaolo Franzoso, Novella Piazzetta, Giorgia Zorzetto, Mirsad Pasalic, Valentina Ceron, Flavia Damiano, Cristina Tridello, Marina Coppola","doi":"10.33393/grhta.2026.3828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA) supports transparent decisions about adopting medical technologies by balancing practical benefits against clinical, organizational, and economic consequences. This study evaluated a single-use continence care system using an integrated decision-support framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The single-use system, based on disposable absorbent components, was compared with the standard reusable bedpan/urinal pathway, including washing and reprocessing. The assessment combined Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Budget Impact Analysis (BIA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), a 30-day field test across inpatient units at two hospital sites, and an implementation-specific questionnaire. During the field test, 168 admissions were recorded. MCDA used a weighted aggregate score, while the economic analysis adopted the hospital perspective over three years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined economic inputs and MCDA domain weights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The single-use system offered perceived advantages in ease of use, hygiene, and odor reduction. However, these did not offset limited supporting evidence, lower patient-comfort ratings, operational issues, and higher costs. The MCDA score decreased from 4.80 for standard care to 2.60 for the single-use system (difference: -2.20). Cost per patient increased from €0.65 to €1.00, an incremental cost of €0.35. The three-year budget impact was €2,634 and remained within the local affordability threshold. As the technology was more costly and produced lower overall MCDA value, it was classified as dominated. Sensitivity analyses did not alter the recommendation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The integrated MCDA-economic framework supported transparent hospital-level decision-making. Affordability and perceived practical advantages were insufficient to justify routine adoption of the single-use continence care system.</p>","PeriodicalId":12627,"journal":{"name":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","volume":"13 ","pages":"230-240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13643327/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2026.3828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA) supports transparent decisions about adopting medical technologies by balancing practical benefits against clinical, organizational, and economic consequences. This study evaluated a single-use continence care system using an integrated decision-support framework.

Methods: The single-use system, based on disposable absorbent components, was compared with the standard reusable bedpan/urinal pathway, including washing and reprocessing. The assessment combined Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Budget Impact Analysis (BIA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), a 30-day field test across inpatient units at two hospital sites, and an implementation-specific questionnaire. During the field test, 168 admissions were recorded. MCDA used a weighted aggregate score, while the economic analysis adopted the hospital perspective over three years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined economic inputs and MCDA domain weights.

Results: The single-use system offered perceived advantages in ease of use, hygiene, and odor reduction. However, these did not offset limited supporting evidence, lower patient-comfort ratings, operational issues, and higher costs. The MCDA score decreased from 4.80 for standard care to 2.60 for the single-use system (difference: -2.20). Cost per patient increased from €0.65 to €1.00, an incremental cost of €0.35. The three-year budget impact was €2,634 and remained within the local affordability threshold. As the technology was more costly and produced lower overall MCDA value, it was classified as dominated. Sensitivity analyses did not alter the recommendation.

Conclusion: The integrated MCDA-economic framework supported transparent hospital-level decision-making. Affordability and perceived practical advantages were insufficient to justify routine adoption of the single-use continence care system.

综合mcda -经济框架在失禁护理技术中的实际应用:基于医院的案例研究。
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
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment (GRHTA) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which aims to promote health technology assessment and economic evaluation, enabling choices among alternative therapeutical paths or procedures with different clinical and economic outcomes. GRHTA is a unique journal having three different editorial boards who focus on their respective geographical expertise.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书