BioMedCom Consultants, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012 Jul 18;10(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-9.
Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking.
An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured.
Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16).
This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.
资源分配是卫生政策决策者面临的一个具有挑战性的问题,需要仔细考虑许多因素。本研究的目的是确定文献中报道的医疗保健决策的决策标准及其出现频率。
在 Medline 和 EMBASE 中进行了广泛的文献检索,以确定报告医疗保健决策标准的文章。纳入了决策者(如焦点小组、调查、访谈)进行的研究、概念和综述文章以及描述多标准工具的文章。提取标准,使用源自 EVIDEM 框架的分类系统进行组织,并应用多标准决策分析(MCDA)原则,测量其出现频率。
在确定的 3146 条记录中,有 2790 条被排除。在评估合格性的 356 篇文章中,有 40 篇入选。标准是从世界各地的决策者在微观、中观和宏观决策层面进行的研究以及报告多标准工具的研究中确定的。用于定义标准的术语存在很大差异,共确定了 360 个不同的术语。这些术语被分配到 58 个标准中,这些标准被分为 9 个不同的类别,包括:健康结果;受益类型;疾病影响;治疗环境;经济影响;证据质量;实施复杂性;优先级、公平和道德;以及整体背景。出现频率最高的标准是:公平/公正(32 次)、疗效/有效性(29 次)、利益相关者的利益和压力(28 次)、成本效益(23 次)、证据强度(20 次)、安全性(19 次)、卫生系统的使命和任务(19 次)、组织需求和能力(17 次)、患者报告的结果(17 次)和需求(16 次)。
本研究强调了在资源公平分配和覆盖范围的优化决策中考虑规范性和可行性标准的重要性。这项分析为决策者对标准及其相对重要性的国际调查提供了基础。最终目标是制定健全的多标准方法,为医疗保健决策和重点制定提供信息。