埃及化疗药物多标准决策分析框架的验证、调整和应用

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Hend K. Eldeib, Maggie M. Abbassi, Nirmeen A. Sabry
{"title":"埃及化疗药物多标准决策分析框架的验证、调整和应用","authors":"Hend K. Eldeib,&nbsp;Maggie M. Abbassi,&nbsp;Nirmeen A. Sabry","doi":"10.1002/mcda.1834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Health technology assessment is a systematic, transparent, robust, and unbiased assessment of healthcare technology that links evidence and decisions. Healthcare decisions usually require trading-off, and using a structured approach, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), could improve decision quality. This study aimed to adapt an MCDA-based framework for oncological drug evaluation in an Egyptian clinical setting to explore the perspectives of different stakeholders. The 10th edition of the Evidence and Value: Impact on decision making framework was translated, validated, adapted, and applied to explore key differences between the priorities of different stakeholders for coverage decisions in the oncology field in Egypt. A direct rating scale or hierarchical point allocation was used to elicit criteria weights. Normalized weights were calculated and compared using the preset cut-off value of 0.008. Understandability, willingness to use the adopted weighting techniques, and cognitive burden were assessed and compared. Ninety participants completed the criteria-weighting interview for the adapted tool. The elicited criteria weights differed between the two adopted weighting techniques when comparing stakeholders' priorities using the preset cut-off (0.008). However, there was no significant difference in the weighting technique understandability, future use willingness, and cognitive burden parameters on categorization by either the weighting technique or stakeholder group. This study provides a specially tailored, straightforward procedure for Egyptian stakeholders to evaluate oncologic drugs in a standardized manner by combining various inputs. It also highlights the main variations across Egyptian stakeholder preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":"31 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation, adaptation and application of a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework for chemotherapeutic agents in Egypt\",\"authors\":\"Hend K. Eldeib,&nbsp;Maggie M. Abbassi,&nbsp;Nirmeen A. Sabry\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mcda.1834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Health technology assessment is a systematic, transparent, robust, and unbiased assessment of healthcare technology that links evidence and decisions. Healthcare decisions usually require trading-off, and using a structured approach, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), could improve decision quality. This study aimed to adapt an MCDA-based framework for oncological drug evaluation in an Egyptian clinical setting to explore the perspectives of different stakeholders. The 10th edition of the Evidence and Value: Impact on decision making framework was translated, validated, adapted, and applied to explore key differences between the priorities of different stakeholders for coverage decisions in the oncology field in Egypt. A direct rating scale or hierarchical point allocation was used to elicit criteria weights. Normalized weights were calculated and compared using the preset cut-off value of 0.008. Understandability, willingness to use the adopted weighting techniques, and cognitive burden were assessed and compared. Ninety participants completed the criteria-weighting interview for the adapted tool. The elicited criteria weights differed between the two adopted weighting techniques when comparing stakeholders' priorities using the preset cut-off (0.008). However, there was no significant difference in the weighting technique understandability, future use willingness, and cognitive burden parameters on categorization by either the weighting technique or stakeholder group. This study provides a specially tailored, straightforward procedure for Egyptian stakeholders to evaluate oncologic drugs in a standardized manner by combining various inputs. It also highlights the main variations across Egyptian stakeholder preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis\",\"volume\":\"31 3-4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1834\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健技术评估是对医疗保健技术进行的系统、透明、稳健且无偏见的评估,它将证据与决策联系在一起。医疗决策通常需要权衡利弊,而使用多标准决策分析(MCDA)等结构化方法可以提高决策质量。本研究旨在为埃及临床环境中的肿瘤药物评估调整基于 MCDA 的框架,以探索不同利益相关者的观点。翻译了第 10 版《证据与价值》:该研究对第 10 版《证据与价值:对决策的影响》框架进行了翻译、验证、调整和应用,以探索埃及肿瘤领域不同利益相关者在覆盖决策方面的优先级之间的主要差异。采用直接评分表或分层点数分配法得出标准权重。使用预设的 0.008 临界值计算并比较归一化权重。评估并比较了所采用权重技术的可理解性、使用意愿和认知负担。90 名参与者完成了改编工具的标准权重访谈。在使用预设截断值(0.008)比较利益相关者的优先级时,两种采用的加权技术所得出的标准权重存在差异。然而,加权技术的可理解性、未来使用意愿和认知负担参数在分类上与加权技术或利益相关者群体均无明显差异。这项研究为埃及的利益相关者提供了一个专门定制的、简单明了的程序,通过结合各种输入信息,以标准化的方式对肿瘤药物进行评估。它还强调了埃及利益相关者偏好的主要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation, adaptation and application of a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework for chemotherapeutic agents in Egypt

Health technology assessment is a systematic, transparent, robust, and unbiased assessment of healthcare technology that links evidence and decisions. Healthcare decisions usually require trading-off, and using a structured approach, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), could improve decision quality. This study aimed to adapt an MCDA-based framework for oncological drug evaluation in an Egyptian clinical setting to explore the perspectives of different stakeholders. The 10th edition of the Evidence and Value: Impact on decision making framework was translated, validated, adapted, and applied to explore key differences between the priorities of different stakeholders for coverage decisions in the oncology field in Egypt. A direct rating scale or hierarchical point allocation was used to elicit criteria weights. Normalized weights were calculated and compared using the preset cut-off value of 0.008. Understandability, willingness to use the adopted weighting techniques, and cognitive burden were assessed and compared. Ninety participants completed the criteria-weighting interview for the adapted tool. The elicited criteria weights differed between the two adopted weighting techniques when comparing stakeholders' priorities using the preset cut-off (0.008). However, there was no significant difference in the weighting technique understandability, future use willingness, and cognitive burden parameters on categorization by either the weighting technique or stakeholder group. This study provides a specially tailored, straightforward procedure for Egyptian stakeholders to evaluate oncologic drugs in a standardized manner by combining various inputs. It also highlights the main variations across Egyptian stakeholder preferences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was launched in 1992, and from the outset has aimed to be the repository of choice for papers covering all aspects of MCDA/MCDM. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation and discussion of all aspects of research, application and evaluation of multi-criteria decision analysis, and publishes material from a variety of disciplines and all schools of thought. Papers addressing mathematical, theoretical, and behavioural aspects are welcome, as are case studies, applications and evaluation of techniques and methodologies.
×
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