Wahlster Philip, Goetghebeur Mireille, Kriza Christine, Niederländer Charlotte, Kolominsky-Rabas Peter
Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), National Cluster of Excellence "Medical Technologies - Medical Valley EMN", Bavaria, Germany.
School of Public Health, Universiy of Montreal & LASER Analytica, 1405 TransCanada Highway, Suite 310, Montréal, QC, H9P 2V9, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jul 9;15:262. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0930-0.
The diffusion of health technologies from translational research to reimbursement depends on several factors included the results of health economic analysis. Recent research identified several flaws in health economic concepts. Additionally, the heterogeneous viewpoints of participating stakeholders are rarely systematically addressed in current decision-making. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides an opportunity to tackle these issues. The objective of this study was to review applications of MCDA methods in decisions addressing the trade-off between costs and benefits.
Using basic steps of the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the healthcare literature was performed to identify original research articles from January 1990 to April 2014. Medline, PubMed, Springer Link and specific journals were searched. Using predefined categories, bibliographic records were systematically extracted regarding the type of policy applications, MCDA methodology, criteria used and their definitions.
22 studies were included in the analysis. 15 studies (68 %) used direct MCDA approaches and seven studies (32 %) used preference elicitation approaches. Four studies (19 %) focused on technologies in the early innovation process. The majority (18 studies - 81 %) examined reimbursement decisions. Decision criteria used in studies were obtained from the literature research and context-specific studies, expert opinions, and group discussions. The number of criteria ranged between three up to 15. The most frequently used criteria were health outcomes (73 %), disease impact (59 %), and implementation of the intervention (40 %). Economic criteria included cost-effectiveness criteria (14 studies, 64 %), and total costs/budget impact of an intervention (eight studies, 36 %). The process of including economic aspects is very different among studies. Some studies directly compare costs with other criteria while some include economic consideration in a second step.
In early innovation processes, MCDA can provide information about stakeholder preferences as well as evidence needs in further development. However, only a minority of these studies include economic features due to the limited evidence. The most important economic criterion cost-effectiveness should not be included from a technical perspective as it is already a composite of costs and benefit. There is a significant lack of consensus in methodology employed by the various studies which highlights the need for guidance on application of MCDA at specific phases of an innovation.
卫生技术从转化研究到报销的推广取决于多个因素,其中包括卫生经济分析的结果。近期研究发现了卫生经济概念中的若干缺陷。此外,在当前决策过程中,参与的利益相关者的不同观点很少得到系统解决。多标准决策分析(MCDA)为解决这些问题提供了契机。本研究的目的是回顾MCDA方法在解决成本与效益权衡决策中的应用。
采用PRISMA指南的基本步骤,对1990年1月至2014年4月的医疗保健文献进行系统回顾,以识别原始研究文章。检索了Medline、PubMed、Springer Link和特定期刊。使用预定义类别,系统提取了关于政策应用类型、MCDA方法、使用的标准及其定义的文献记录。
22项研究纳入分析。15项研究(68%)使用直接MCDA方法,7项研究(32%)使用偏好诱导方法。4项研究(19%)关注早期创新过程中的技术。大多数研究(18项研究 - 81%)考察报销决策。研究中使用的决策标准来自文献研究和特定背景研究、专家意见以及小组讨论。标准数量在3至15个之间。最常用的标准是健康结果(73%)、疾病影响(59%)和干预措施的实施(40%)。经济标准包括成本效益标准(14项研究,64%)以及干预措施的总成本/预算影响(8项研究,36%)。各研究纳入经济方面的过程差异很大。一些研究直接将成本与其他标准进行比较,而一些研究在第二步纳入经济考量。
在早期创新过程中,MCDA可以提供有关利益相关者偏好的信息以及进一步开发中的证据需求。然而,由于证据有限,这些研究中只有少数纳入了经济特征。从技术角度来看,最重要的经济标准成本效益不应纳入,因为它已经是成本和效益的综合体现。不同研究采用的方法存在显著缺乏共识的情况,这凸显了在创新的特定阶段对MCDA应用进行指导的必要性。