CEG-IST, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.
Department of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Aug;20(6):891-918. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01052-3. Epub 2019 Apr 20.
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) concepts, models and tools have been used increasingly in health technology assessment (HTA), with several studies pointing out practical and theoretical issues related to its use. This study provides a critical review of published studies on MCDA in the context of HTA by assessing their methodological quality and summarising methodological challenges.
A systematic review was conducted to identify studies discussing, developing or reviewing the use of MCDA in HTA using aggregation approaches. Studies were classified according to publication time and type, country of study, technology type and study type. The PROACTIVE-S approach was constructed and used to analyse methodological quality. Challenges and limitations reported in eligible studies were collected and summarised; this was followed by a critical discussion on research requirements to address the identified challenges.
129 journal articles were eligible for review, 56% of which were published in 2015-2017; 42% focused on pharmaceuticals; 36, 26 and 18% reported model applications, issues regarding MCDA implementation analyses, and proposing frameworks, respectively. Poor compliance with good methodological practice (< 25% complying studies) was found regarding behavioural analyses, discussion of model assumptions and uncertainties, modelling of value functions, and dealing with judgment inconsistencies. The five most reported challenges related to evidence and data synthesis; value system differences and participant selection issues; participant difficulties; methodological complexity and resource balance; and criteria and attributes modelling. A critical discussion on ways to address these challenges ensues.
Results highlight the need for advancement in robust methodologies, procedures and tools to improve methodological quality of MCDA in HTA studies. Research pathways include developing new model features, good practice guidelines, technologies to enable participation and behavioural research.
多准则决策分析(MCDA)概念、模型和工具在卫生技术评估(HTA)中得到了越来越多的应用,有几项研究指出了与该方法应用相关的实际和理论问题。本研究通过评估其方法学质量和总结方法学挑战,对 MCDA 在 HTA 中的应用的已发表研究进行了批判性评价。
采用系统评价方法,确定了讨论、开发或审查使用聚合方法进行 HTA 的 MCDA 的研究。研究按出版时间和类型、研究国家、技术类型和研究类型进行分类。构建并使用 PROACTIVE-S 方法分析方法学质量。收集并总结合格研究中报告的挑战和局限性;随后对解决已确定挑战所需的研究要求进行了批判性讨论。
有 129 篇期刊文章符合审查条件,其中 56%发表于 2015-2017 年;42%的文章关注药品;36%、26%和 18%分别报告了模型应用、MCDA 实施分析的问题以及提出框架。关于行为分析、模型假设和不确定性的讨论、价值函数建模以及处理判断不一致性等方面,良好方法学实践的合规性较差(符合研究不足 25%)。报告的五个最常见挑战与证据和数据综合、价值体系差异和参与者选择问题、参与者困难、方法学复杂性和资源平衡以及标准和属性建模有关。接着对如何解决这些挑战进行了批判性讨论。
结果强调需要推进稳健的方法学、程序和工具,以提高 HTA 研究中 MCDA 的方法学质量。研究途径包括开发新的模型功能、良好实践指南、使参与和行为研究成为可能的技术。