呼吸吸入器多标准决策分析框架的开发和实际应用:它在马来西亚卫生部药品处方清单中是否总是有用?

IF 1.7
MDM policy & practice Pub Date : 2021-03-30 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2381468321994063
Yee Vern Yong, Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom, Nurulmaya Ahmad Sa'ad, Rosliza Lajis, Faridah Aryani Md Yusof, Jamalul Azizi Abdul Rahaman
{"title":"呼吸吸入器多标准决策分析框架的开发和实际应用:它在马来西亚卫生部药品处方清单中是否总是有用?","authors":"Yee Vern Yong,&nbsp;Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom,&nbsp;Nurulmaya Ahmad Sa'ad,&nbsp;Rosliza Lajis,&nbsp;Faridah Aryani Md Yusof,&nbsp;Jamalul Azizi Abdul Rahaman","doi":"10.1177/2381468321994063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives.</b> The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. <b>Methods.</b> The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. <b>Results.</b> A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, \"patient suitability\" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. <b>Conclusions.</b> Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.</p>","PeriodicalId":520707,"journal":{"name":"MDM policy & practice","volume":" ","pages":"2381468321994063"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468321994063","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?\",\"authors\":\"Yee Vern Yong,&nbsp;Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom,&nbsp;Nurulmaya Ahmad Sa'ad,&nbsp;Rosliza Lajis,&nbsp;Faridah Aryani Md Yusof,&nbsp;Jamalul Azizi Abdul Rahaman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2381468321994063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives.</b> The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. <b>Methods.</b> The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. <b>Results.</b> A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, \\\"patient suitability\\\" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. <b>Conclusions.</b> Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM policy & practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2381468321994063\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468321994063\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM policy & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468321994063\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM policy & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468321994063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目标。目前用于评估呼吸吸入器的卫生技术评估存在局限性,因此有必要制定明确的处方决策框架,以确保药物的可及性、价值和可负担性之间的平衡。本研究旨在开发一个多标准决策分析(MCDA)框架,将该框架应用于卫生部药物处方集(MOHMF)中潜在和目前已列入清单的呼吸吸入器,并从处方集中列入和退市药物的角度分析应用该产出的影响。方法。框架开发的总体方法遵循ISPOR MCDA新兴良好做法工作组的建议。MCDA框架是使用Microsoft Excel 2010开发的,涉及所有相关利益相关者。然后,根据从现有公开证据的最高水平、制药公司和专业意见收集的数据,将该框架应用于27种药物。使用加性模型对绩效分数进行分析。最终价值随后由一个专家委员会审议。结果。利益相关者共确定了8个主要标准和7个次要标准。经济标准的权重为30%。在非经济标准中,“患者适宜性”权重最高。根据MCDA的产出,专家委员会推荐了一种潜在药物(三种;33%)被添加到卫生部和一种现有药物(24种;4%)被从财政部除名。其他现有药物保持不变。结论。尽管这一框架对于决定将新药添加到处方中很有用,但对于从卫生部卫生和家庭基金中删除/退市现有药物而言,它的功能和影响似乎较小。这一结论是否可推广到其他公式还有待证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Objectives. The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. Methods. The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. Results. A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, "patient suitability" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. Conclusions. Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信