scholarly journals Application of A Value Framework Based on Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment: A Series of Case Studies with Decision Makers Across European Countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. A360 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Angelis ◽  
P Kanavos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis ◽  
A Value

scholarly journals Evaluating the Benefits of New Drugs in Health Technology Assessment Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study on Metastatic Prostate Cancer With the Dental and Pharmaceuticals Benefits Agency (TLV) in Sweden

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831879621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aris Angelis
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Value Theory ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

Background. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been identified as a prospective methodology for assisting decision makers in evaluating the benefits of new medicines in health technology assessment (HTA); however, limited empirical evidence exists from real-world applications. Objective. To test in practice a recently developed MCDA methodological framework for HTA, the Advance Value Framework, in a proof-of-concept case study with decision makers. Methods. A multi-attribute value theory methodology was adopted applying the MACBETH questioning protocol through a facilitated decision-analysis modelling approach as part of a decision conference with four experts. Settings. The remit of the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket [TLV]) was adopted but in addition supplementary value dimensions were considered. Patients. Metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients were considered having received prior chemotherapy. Interventions. Abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide were evaluated as third-line treatments. Measurements. Participants’ value preferences were elicited involving criteria selection, options scoring, criteria weighting, and their aggregation. Results. Eight criteria attributes were finally included in the model relating to therapeutic impact, safety profile, socioeconomic impact, and innovation level with relative importance weights 44.5%, 33.3%, 14.8%, and 7.4% per cluster, respectively. Enzalutamide scored the highest overall weighted preference value score, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. Dividing treatments’ overall weighted preference value scores by their costs derived “costs per unit of value” for ranking the treatments based on value-for-money grounds. Limitations. Study limitations included lack of comparative clinical effects across treatments and the small sample of participants. Conclusion. The Advance Value Framework has the prospects of facilitating the evaluation process in HTA and health care decision making; additional research is recommended to address technical challenges and optimize the use of MCDA for policy making.

OP102 Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis In The Field Of Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 38-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Avdeyev ◽  
Adlet Tabarov ◽  
Amir Akhetov ◽  
Nasrulla Shanazarov ◽  
Aigul Kaptagayeva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Managerial Decision Making ◽  
Health Technologies

Introduction:One of the main tools for Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB HTA) is the preparation of a mini-health technology assessment (HTA) report. Despite the high value of the results of mini-HTA reports for hospital decision-makers, the classical mini-HTA report does not allow a direct comparison of several health technologies among themselves.Methods:Based on the analysis of international experience of using the principles of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the field of HB HTA, we created and approved our own managerial decision-making model which includes five standardized multiple criteria. The value (weight) of each criterion was defined as the arithmetic mean obtained as a result of interviewing hospital decision-makers and an HTA expert group.Results:Five standardized multiple criteria were included in the structure of our mini-HTA report. These criteria presented the main results of assessment of the viability of implementing new health technologies (HTs) in hospital practice and contain the following: i) Novelty/innovation; ii) Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety; iii) Relevance (demand); iv) Economic effectiveness; and, v) Payback period. We conducted the modeling of various options of HTA results by using multiple criteria, which allowed us to determine the threshold values of the evaluated HTs corresponding to their priority for implementation: i) High priority - HTs are recommended for implementation; ii) Medium priority - HTs can be recommended only if there are sufficient financial resources in hospital; and, iii) Low priority - HTs may be recommended only if there are strong reasons for their need.Conclusions:Integration of the principles of MCDA in the structure of mini-HTA reports gives the opportunity to i) make comparative assessments of implementing new health technologies based on standardized criteria; ii) determine the priority for implementation of newly evaluated health technologies; iii) avoid the influence of subjective factors on the managerial decision-making in hospitals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document