Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward

Rob Baltussen*, Kevin Marsh, Praveen Thokala, Vakaramoko Diaby, Hector Castro, Irina Cleemput, Martina Garau, Georgi Iskrov, Alireza Olyaeemanesh, Andrew Mirelman, Mohammedreza Mobinizadeh, Alec Morton, Michele Tringali, Janine van Til, Joice Valentim, Monika Wagner, Sitaporn Youngkong, Vladimir Zah, Agnes Toll, Maarten JansenLeon Bijlmakers, Wija Oortwijn, Henk Broekhuizen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1283-1288
Number of pages6
JournalValue in health
Volume22
Issue number11
Early online date16 Oct 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology Assessment
Decision Support Techniques
Delivery of Health Care
Practice Guidelines
Consensus
Netherlands

Keywords

  • HTA agencies
  • multicriteria decision analysis
  • priority setting
  • value framework

Cite this

Baltussen, R., Marsh, K., Thokala, P., Diaby, V., Castro, H., Cleemput, I., ... Broekhuizen, H. (2019). Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. Value in health, 22(11), 1283-1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014
Baltussen, Rob ; Marsh, Kevin ; Thokala, Praveen ; Diaby, Vakaramoko ; Castro, Hector ; Cleemput, Irina ; Garau, Martina ; Iskrov, Georgi ; Olyaeemanesh, Alireza ; Mirelman, Andrew ; Mobinizadeh, Mohammedreza ; Morton, Alec ; Tringali, Michele ; van Til, Janine ; Valentim, Joice ; Wagner, Monika ; Youngkong, Sitaporn ; Zah, Vladimir ; Toll, Agnes ; Jansen, Maarten ; Bijlmakers, Leon ; Oortwijn, Wija ; Broekhuizen, Henk. / Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies : Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. In: Value in health. 2019 ; Vol. 22, No. 11. pp. 1283-1288.
@article{9f18e46e3f5942dd9ee6f0d664c6f938,
title = "Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward",
abstract = "Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.",
keywords = "HTA agencies, multicriteria decision analysis, priority setting, value framework",
author = "Rob Baltussen and Kevin Marsh and Praveen Thokala and Vakaramoko Diaby and Hector Castro and Irina Cleemput and Martina Garau and Georgi Iskrov and Alireza Olyaeemanesh and Andrew Mirelman and Mohammedreza Mobinizadeh and Alec Morton and Michele Tringali and {van Til}, Janine and Joice Valentim and Monika Wagner and Sitaporn Youngkong and Vladimir Zah and Agnes Toll and Maarten Jansen and Leon Bijlmakers and Wija Oortwijn and Henk Broekhuizen",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1283--1288",
journal = "Value in health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

Baltussen, R, Marsh, K, Thokala, P, Diaby, V, Castro, H, Cleemput, I, Garau, M, Iskrov, G, Olyaeemanesh, A, Mirelman, A, Mobinizadeh, M, Morton, A, Tringali, M, van Til, J, Valentim, J, Wagner, M, Youngkong, S, Zah, V, Toll, A, Jansen, M, Bijlmakers, L, Oortwijn, W & Broekhuizen, H 2019, 'Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward', Value in health, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1283-1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies : Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. / Baltussen, Rob; Marsh, Kevin; Thokala, Praveen; Diaby, Vakaramoko; Castro, Hector; Cleemput, Irina; Garau, Martina; Iskrov, Georgi; Olyaeemanesh, Alireza; Mirelman, Andrew; Mobinizadeh, Mohammedreza; Morton, Alec; Tringali, Michele; van Til, Janine; Valentim, Joice; Wagner, Monika; Youngkong, Sitaporn; Zah, Vladimir; Toll, Agnes; Jansen, Maarten; Bijlmakers, Leon; Oortwijn, Wija; Broekhuizen, Henk.

In: Value in health, Vol. 22, No. 11, 01.11.2019, p. 1283-1288.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies

T2 - Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward

AU - Baltussen, Rob

AU - Marsh, Kevin

AU - Thokala, Praveen

AU - Diaby, Vakaramoko

AU - Castro, Hector

AU - Cleemput, Irina

AU - Garau, Martina

AU - Iskrov, Georgi

AU - Olyaeemanesh, Alireza

AU - Mirelman, Andrew

AU - Mobinizadeh, Mohammedreza

AU - Morton, Alec

AU - Tringali, Michele

AU - van Til, Janine

AU - Valentim, Joice

AU - Wagner, Monika

AU - Youngkong, Sitaporn

AU - Zah, Vladimir

AU - Toll, Agnes

AU - Jansen, Maarten

AU - Bijlmakers, Leon

AU - Oortwijn, Wija

AU - Broekhuizen, Henk

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

AB - Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

KW - HTA agencies

KW - multicriteria decision analysis

KW - priority setting

KW - value framework

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073993562&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073993562

VL - 22

SP - 1283

EP - 1288

JO - Value in health

JF - Value in health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 11

ER -