Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Health Technology Assessment: Review of Literature on MCDA Methodology and Decision Criteria

이용주; 김영주; 박다진; Danny Liew; 이용주

추천

검색

자료유형: 학술저널

저자정보: 이용주 (동덕여자대학교) 김영주 (Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd.) 박다진 (Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd.) Danny Liew (Monash University Melbourne Australia) 이용주 (동덕여자대학교)

저널정보: 한국보건의료기술평가학회 보건의료기술평가 보건의료기술평가 제5권 제2호

발행연도: 2017.12

수록면: 128 - 142 (15page)

이용수

📌

연구주제

📖

연구배경

🔬

연구방법

🏆

연구결과

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

Objectives: Many studies are being conducted around the globe to assess the feasibility of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health technology assessment (HTA). In this review, we assessed MCDA methodologies and decision criteria used in HTA. Methods: A total of 35 studies published from 2005?2015 that applied MCDA in HTA were selected and the following areas were reviewed: 1) Context of the decision making: decision making setting, level (e.g., micro, meso, macro), and the assessment target (e.g., healthcare policy, drugs, health program, medical test, medical device, treatment, or surgery), 2) MCDA methodology: type of MCDA technique, weighting method, criteria elicitation method, and the participants, 3) Decision criteria: feasibility, social/population impact, intervention related factors, patient/individual-centered values, budget impact, and quality of evidence, and 4) Transparency of the decision making process: the process was considered transparent if the study disclosed the weight of each criterion, the formula used to calculate the final score or if the weighting/calculation method was well explained to the level considered acceptable by the authors. Results: Of the studies reviewed, 63.9% used MCDA for decision making at a national level, and the type of HT being assessed was most often national/regional healthcare policy (44.1%). The most prevalent method of weighting was direct weighting using scales (40.0%). Most of the studies (80.0%) conducted group discussions for criterion selection, and among the criteria, intervention-related factors such as safety and efficacy (93.9%) were most often observed, followed by budget-impact (81.8%) and patient/individual-centered values (81.8%). Conclusion: Substantial demands for incorporation of patient-centered values into the current HTA process were observed. Additionally, MCDA may be a useful tool in incorporating such values to the HTA decision framework, but unresolved methodological issues remain. Further assessment on the application of MCDA in HTA should be conducted for Korea-specific settings.

#Multiple criteria decision analysis · Health technology assessment ·

참고문헌 (30)

참고문헌 신청

Ngorsuraches S / 2012 / Drug reimbursement decision-making in Thailand, China, and South Korea / Value Health 15(1 Suppl):S120~S125

Golan O / 2012 / Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money / Isr J Health Policy Res 1:44

Martin DK / 2002 / Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers / Health Policy 61:279~290

Kwon SH / 2017 / Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea / Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 17:411~419

Goetghebeur MM / 2012 / Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal / Med Decis Making 32:376~388

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!