The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review

SMART Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)-One of the Keys to Future Pandemic Strategies

Background/Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for adaptive public health strategies and effective decision-making tools to optimize clinical responses and policy measures based on regional contexts. This study aims to identify key criteria for developing a patient-centered strategy to enhance the resilience of Romania's healthcare system during the pandemic. Methods: This research introduces a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model using the Simple Multiple Attribute Assessment Technique (SMART) to integrate quantitative and qualitative data, providing decision-makers with a structured tool for improving healthcare resilience. A survey of 412 Romanian healthcare professionals identified critical risks and opportunities. The study followed a two-phase approach: first, analyzing expert perceptions to determine key challenges; second, applying a mixed-methods evaluation to prioritize resilience-building strategies. Results: Four main challenges emerged: (1) healthcare workforce shortages causing excessive workload and stress, (2) poor communication and systemic inefficiencies limiting patient access, (3) weak crisis management due to delayed control measures, and (4) regulatory gaps leading to fragmented responses. Proposed solutions included workforce training, improved communication, telemedicine integration, increased financial support, and a unified legal framework. The SMART method facilitated the structured prioritization of these measures, with long-term system sustainability emerging as the most effective strategy for preventing future crises. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of integrating MCDA into healthcare decision-making, offering a scalable model for policymakers to enhance crisis response and resource allocation. By incorporating expert insights and patient needs, the proposed framework strengthens healthcare system preparedness, contributing to informed, patient-centered decision-making and long-term resilience. Ultimately, our findings not only contribute to the existing literature but may also open new directions to facilitate informed, patient-centered decision making, thereby strengthening the resilience of healthcare systems in crisis situations.

New Horizons? Assessing General Public Preferences for a Wellbeing Economy in the Post-COVID-19 World

OBJECTIVE

As societies emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are increasingly moving away from a focus on economic growth at any cost towards the principles of a wellbeing economy, focused on achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth and wellbeing. This study aimed to assess the relative importance to the Australian general public of the key principles of a wellbeing economy and to investigate heterogeneity in preferences between demographic subgroups.

METHODS

An online survey was developed and delivered to a general public sample of 2042 Australian adults (aged 18 years and above). Respondents were invited to rank the key principles of a wellbeing economy (dignity, nature and climate, social connection, fairness and participation) plus two additional traditional economic indicators of societal success ('economic growth' and 'economic prosperity') in order of their relative importance for informing future policy directions. Data analysis was conducted using simple summative scoring, which involved the use of a point system allocated to rankings as a dependent variable. In addition, a rank-ordered logit model was used to explore preferences for the entire sample and subgroups defined by key socio-demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

'Dignity' (people have enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness) and 'fairness' (equal opportunity for all Australians and the gap between richest and poorest greatly reduced) were ranked as the most important priorities for the total sample and for key socio-demographic subgroups differentiated by age, level of education and level of socio-economic advantage. Traditional economic indicators of societal success including 'economic prosperity' and 'economic growth' were considered important but generally ranked below the principles of 'dignity' and 'fairness'.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that government movements away from traditional economic indicators and towards new broader wellbeing economy measures of societal success are likely to be supported by the general public.

Engaging health system, service and consumer representatives in the co-design of a multi-criteria decision-making framework for commissioning overweight and obesity programs and services

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a multi-faceted problem that requires complex health system responses. While no single program or service is sufficient to meet every individual's needs, some criteria that increase the likelihood of program/service quality delivery to produce effective outcomes exist. However, although research on health commissioning is available internationally and is growing within the Australian context, no evidence exists of a multi-criteria decision-making framework to address the complexity required for effective commissioning of overweight and obesity early intervention and weight management programs or services. This study aimed to develop a set of criteria to support effective commissioning in this context.

METHODS

A mixed-methods co-design approach was used to develop a multi-criteria framework. A literature review informed a three-stage co-design consensus-gathering approach. Participants included Western Australian stakeholders from the Western Australian health system, services and consumers, who reviewed, ranked and validated responses and criteria through ongoing discussions. A deliberative forum was held between the two online, modified Delphi surveys to reach a consensus among stakeholders.

RESULTS

Through the co-design, a total of 63 stakeholders were identified: 24 completed the round 1 Delphi survey assessing 22 proposed criteria, 40 attended the deliberative forum and 30 completed the round 2 Delphi survey. A total of 4 themes arose from the co-design process: (1) reduce duplication, (2) demote criteria, (3) re-organize criteria and (4) simplify language, and 10 criteria were established: safety, collaboration and consultation, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, evidence-based, health service delivery model, sustainability and workforce capacity and competence. The criteria were underpinned by indicators highlighting relevant sub-themes.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-criteria framework was developed and its application to the commissioning process will enable the selection of programs and services that will likely have an impact on individuals' use of and satisfaction with programs and services, overweight and obesity-related outcomes and inter-agency collaborations to maximize economic and workforce resources.

Health technology assessment and innovation: here to help or hinder?

Innovative health technologies offer much to patients, clinicians, and health systems. Policy makers can, however, be slow to embrace innovation for many reasons, including a less robust body of evidence, perceived high costs, and a fear that once technologies enter the health system, they will be difficult to remove. Health technology funding decisions are usually made after a rigorous health technology assessment (HTA) process, including a cost analysis. However, by focusing on therapeutic value and cost-savings, the traditional HTA framework often fails to capture innovation in the assessment process. How HTA defines, evaluates, and values innovation is currently inconsistent, and it is generally agreed that by explicitly defining innovation would recognize and reward and, in turn, stimulate, encourage, and incentivize future innovation in the system. To foster innovation in health technology, policy needs to be innovative and utilize other HTA tools to inform decision making including horizon scanning, multicriteria decision analysis, and funding mechanisms such as managed agreements and coverage with evidence development. When properly supported and incentivized, and by shifting the focus from cost to investment, innovation in health technology such as genomics, point-of-care testing, and digital health may deliver better patient outcomes. Industry and agency members of the Health Technology Assessment International Asia Policy Forum (APF) met in Taiwan in November 2023 to discuss the potential of HTA to foster innovation, especially in the Asia region. Discussions and presentations during the 2023 APF were informed by a background paper, which forms the basis of this paper.

Using a Patient-Centered Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Assess the Value of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments in the US: A Study Protocol

OBJECTIVE

The engagement of patients and family caregivers in value assessment is pivotal since they provide valuable contributions to assessment acceptability and relevance. The proposed study aims to use patient-centered techniques and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate the values of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers living in three 'Deep South' States of the US-Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

METHODS

This study will follow guidance from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) for patient engagement and two best practice reports for MCDA from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) to complete value assessment. Throughout the study, we will engage multiple stakeholders, including patients, family caregivers, healthcare providers, and payers. Forty patients with MS and their family caregivers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be invited to participate in this study. We will intensively train them for value assessment knowledge and MCDA before we engage them in MCDA to determine the value of DMTs for MS.

DISCUSSIONS

Our approach differs from common MCDA since we incorporated a patient-centered framework in this study. Unlike previous studies only briefly inform or prepare participants before the MCDA process, in this study, we will provide basic value assessment trainings for patients and family caregivers to ensure they can effectively engage throughout the patient-centered MCDA process. We expect this study will demonstrate that the patient-centered MCDA approach is feasible and likely leads to improved patients' and family caregivers' engagement in value assessment.

A multiple criteria decision analysis to establish the use cases and candidate point of care tests to enter into a platform trial of multiple in vitro diagnostic point of care tests in the prehospital environment

Background

There are increasing demands on Emergency Medical Services. More efficient treatment pathways are required to support conveyance decision making and patient referral in prehospital care. Point of Care testing is increasingly available and utilised across the NHS to support optimal ways of working. We aimed to design and conduct a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to prioritise in vitro point of care tests and use cases for inclusion in a platform trial of in vitro point of care testing in UK Emergency Medical Services.

Methods

We designed a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis that included systematic scoping reviews stakeholder recruitment, two stakeholder surveys and two stakeholder workshops to scope the use cases, explore criteria and map use cases, evaluate the criteria and measure the use cases against the criteria.

Results

We recruited 32 stakeholders. We developed a scoring matrix with 4 criteria for scoring the use cases and 8 criteria for scoring the point of care tests and applied weighting determined from survey results. Use cases were scored by the stakeholders against 4 criteria. The 3 highest scoring use cases were point of care troponin testing in: possible Acute Myocardial Infarction, lactate testing in suspected sepsis and in trauma. We developed the process for scoring the point of care tests to be completed close to a proposed trial to allow for a changes in technology.

Conclusions

We successfully designed a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to identify use cases and candidate tests for inclusion in a future platform trial of in vitro point of care testing in UK Emergency Medical Services. We identified 3 use cases for evaluation in a platform trial of in vitro point of care testing: troponin testing in possible acute myocardial infarction, lactate testing in suspected sepsis and lactate testing to identify occult haemorrhage in trauma.

Values Beyond "Health" in Budget-Constrained Healthcare Systems

OBJECTIVES

Most current methods to value healthcare treatments only incorporate measures such as quality-adjusted life-years, combining gains in health-related quality of life and life expectancy in specific ways. Failure of these methods to recognize other dimensions of value has led to calls for methods to include additional values that are associated with the healthcare treatments but not captured directly by quality-adjusted life-years. This article seeks to provide methodologically sound ways to incorporate additional health-related outcomes, focusing on budget-constrained healthcare systems, in which using standard welfare economics methods are often eschewed.

METHODS

The analysis develops standard extra-welfarist approaches to maximizing aggregate health, subject to fixed-budget constraints, using Lagrange multiplier methods. Then, additional valuable health-related outcomes, eg, reduced caregiver burden, real option value, and market- and non-market productivity are introduced. The article also introduces a social welfare function approach to illuminate how disability, disease severity and other equity-related issues can be incorporated into complete welfare measures.

RESULTS

Resulting analysis, fully developed in an Appendix in Supplemental Materials found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.02.005 and summarized in the main text, show that understanding how average and marginal healthcare costs increase with output and how health augments "additional values" provides ways to assess willingness to pay for them in these fixed-budget situations.

CONCLUSIONS

In budget-constrained healthcare systems, only from actual budget allocations can values both of health itself and "additional values" be inferred. These methods, combined with methodologically sound social welfare functions, demonstrate how to move from "health" to "welfare" in measuring the value of increased healthcare use.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach.

METHODS

We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices

This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's "impact inventory" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) "value flower" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a user guide for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

Rationing in an Era of Multiple Tight Constraints: Is Cost-Utility Analysis Still Fit for Purpose?

Cost-utility analysis may not be sufficient to support reimbursement decisions when the assessed health intervention requires a large proportion of the healthcare budget or when the monetary healthcare budget is not the only resource constraint. Such cases include joint replacement, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions and settings where all resources are constrained (e.g. post-COVID-19 or in low/middle-income countries). Using literature on health technology assessment, rationing and reimbursement in healthcare, we identified seven alternative frameworks for simultaneous decisions about (dis)investment and proposed modifications to deal with multiple resource constraints. These frameworks comprised constrained optimisation; cost-effectiveness league table; 'step-in-the-right-direction' approach; heuristics based on effective gradients; weighted cost-effectiveness ratios; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). We used numerical examples to demonstrate how five of these alternative frameworks would operate. The modified frameworks we propose could be used in local commissioning and/or health technology assessment to supplement standard cost-utility analysis for interventions that have large budget impact and/or are subject to additional constraints.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.