从卫生经济学角度看多标准决策分析：将经济评估扩展以纳入更广泛结果的机遇与陷阱
MCDA from a health economics perspective: opportunities and pitfalls of extending economic evaluation to incorporate broader outcomes.
作者信息
Jit Mark
机构信息
1Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK.
2Modelling and Economics Unit, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5EQ UK.
出版信息
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0118-7. eCollection 2018.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a structured decision-making process that offers greater flexibility to incorporate multiple objectives than cost-effectiveness analysis or benefit-cost analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The flexibility of MCDA requires careful consideration of its methodological underpinnings, analytical forms and cognitive biases that may arise in eliciting trade-off. The methodology of MCDA should ideally incorporate both deliberative and technical processes.
摘要
背景
多标准决策分析（MCDA）是一种结构化决策过程，与成本效益分析或效益成本分析相比，它在纳入多个目标方面具有更大的灵活性。
结论
MCDA的灵活性要求仔细考虑其方法基础、分析形式以及在权衡取舍过程中可能出现的认知偏差。理想情况下，MCDA的方法应同时包含审议过程和技术过程。
相似文献
1
MCDA from a health economics perspective: opportunities and pitfalls of extending economic evaluation to incorporate broader outcomes.从卫生经济学角度看多标准决策分析：将经济评估扩展以纳入更广泛结果的机遇与陷阱
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0118-7. eCollection 2018.
2
Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).平衡医学创新不同阶段的成本与效益：多标准决策分析（MCDA）的系统评价
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jul 9;15:262. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0930-0.
3
Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.将公平性问题纳入成本效益分析中：系统文献回顾。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Jan;40(1):45-64. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01094-7. Epub 2021 Oct 29.
4
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience.用于卫生技术评估的多标准决策分析（MCDA）：昆士兰卫生部门的经验
Aust Health Rev. 2019 Oct;43(5):591-599. doi: 10.1071/AH18042.
5
Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making FIFARMA, 2016.利用多标准决策分析（MCDA）支持医疗保健决策 FIFARMA，2016年
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017 Oct 12;5(1):1360545. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2017.1360545. eCollection 2017.
6
Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?协调美国医疗保健效果分析协会（ACEA）与多标准决策分析（MCDA）：在美国医疗环境中衡量成本效益是否有前进的道路？
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021 Mar 1;19(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12962-021-00266-8.
7
The economics of the COVID-19 pandemic: economic evaluation of government mitigation and suppression policies, health system innovations, and models of care.2019冠状病毒病大流行的经济学：政府缓解和抑制政策、卫生系统创新及护理模式的经济评估
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2023 May 24:1-16. doi: 10.1007/s10389-023-01919-z.
8
Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal.将健康技术评估（HTA）与多准则决策分析（MCDA）相结合，以实现高效的医疗保健决策：将 EVIDEM 框架应用于药品评估。
Med Decis Making. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):376-88. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11416870. Epub 2011 Oct 10.
9
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force.用于医疗保健决策的多标准决策分析——新兴良好实践：ISPOR多标准决策分析新兴良好实践工作组报告2
Value Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):125-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016. Epub 2016 Mar 7.
10
Amplifying Each Patient's Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients.放大每位患者的声音：对涉及患者的多标准决策分析的系统评价
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):155-162. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1.
引用本文的文献
1
Multi-criteria decision-making methods applied in health-insurance underwriting.多标准决策方法在健康保险承保中的应用。
Health Syst (Basingstoke). 2022 Jun 19;12(1):52-84. doi: 10.1080/20476965.2022.2085190. eCollection 2023.
2
Applying value-based strategies to accelerate access to novel cancer medications: guidance from the Oncology Health Economics Expert Panel in Qatar (Q-OHEP).应用基于价值的策略加速新型癌症药物的可及性：来自卡塔尔肿瘤学卫生经济学专家小组（Q-OHEP）的指导。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 6;23(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08981-5.
3
Introduction: priority setting in global health.引言：全球卫生领域的优先事项设定
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0115-x. eCollection 2018.
本文引用的文献
1
Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?疫苗经济评估面临的方法学挑战：是否仍有可能采用通用方法？
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Jun;14(3):245-52. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0224-7.
2
Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy.扩大卫生技术评估：增强公平性和合法性。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 6;5(1):1-3. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187.
3
Valuing vaccines: deficiencies and remedies.重视疫苗：缺陷与补救措施
Vaccine. 2015 Jun 8;33 Suppl 2:B29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.023.
4
Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review.能否将公平性问题纳入成本效益分析？系统评价。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Apr;28(2):125-32. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000050. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
5
Political accountability of explicit rationing: legitimacy problems faced by NICE.明确配给的政治问责制：英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所面临的合法性问题。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010 Apr;15(2):65-6. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009145. Epub 2010 Feb 22.
6
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.《不确定性下的判断：启发式与偏差》
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
7
The ethics of accountability in managed care reform.管理式医疗改革中的问责伦理。
Health Aff (Millwood). 1998 Sep-Oct;17(5):50-64. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50.
Zotero 插件