The art of priority setting

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.

RESULTS

Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Prioritising research funding for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia

The Targeted Translation Research Accelerator program was created to address cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia. To maximise the impact of the considerable investment in this program, a structured prioritisation project was undertaken to determine the highest priority health and medical unmet needs in cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The project was led by Monash University's Behaviour Works Australia in collaboration with Australian National University, Research Australia, and MTPConnect. We conducted an online survey with 318 experts and community representatives to generate a 'long list' of unmet needs for (1) cardiovascular disease; (2) diabetes; and (3) interactions in the pathogenesis of Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. We then convened roundtables of clinical, research, and community leaders to discuss survey results. They prioritised unmet needs against six predefined criteria then discussed results. We present the final priority areas for funding. We demonstrate how a feasible, reproducible, and collaborative prioritisation methodology can be used when designing research funding programs. Such approaches can ensure that funding is directed towards projects that are valuable to the community and reflective of expert opinion.

Lessons from the development process of the Afghanistan integrated package of essential health services

In 2017, in the middle of the armed conflict with the Taliban, the Ministry of Public Health decided that the Afghan health system needed a well-defined priority package of health services taking into account the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases and injuries and benefiting from the latest evidence published by DCP3. This leads to a 2-year process involving data analysis, modelling and national consultations, which produce this Integrated Package of Essential health Services (IPEHS). The IPEHS was finalised just before the takeover by the Taliban and could not be implemented. The Afghanistan experience has highlighted the need to address not only the content of a more comprehensive benefit package, but also its implementation and financing. The IPEHS could be used as a basis to help professionals and the new authorities to define their priorities.

What interventions should we implement in England's mental health services? The mental health implementation network (MHIN) mixed-methods approach to rapid prioritisation

Introduction

Setting mental health priorities helps researchers, policy makers, and service funders improve mental health services. In the context of a national mental health implementation programme in England, this study aims to identify implementable evidence-based interventions in key priority areas to improve mental health service delivery.

Methods

A mixed-methods research design was used for a three step prioritisation approach involving systematic scoping reviews (additional manuscript under development), expert consultations and data triangulation. Groups with diverse expertise, including experts by experience, worked together to improve decision-making quality by promoting more inclusive and comprehensive discussions. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to combine participants' varied opinions, data and judgments about the data's relevance to the issues at hand during a decision conferencing workshop where the priorities were finalised.

Results

The study identified mental health interventions in three mental health priority areas: mental health inequalities, child and adolescent mental health, comorbidities with a focus on integration of mental and physical health services and mental health and substance misuse problems. Key interventions in all the priority areas are outlined. The programme is putting some of these evidence-based interventions into action nationwide in each of these three priority mental health priority areas.

Conclusion

We report an inclusive attempt to ensure that the list of mental health service priorities agrees with perceived needs on the ground and focuses on evidence-based interventions. Other fields of healthcare may also benefit from this methodological approach if they need to make rapid health-prioritisation decisions.

HTA challenges for appraising rare disease interventions viewed through the lens of an institutional multidimensional value framework

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating rare disease interventions poses challenges for HTA agencies, including uncertainties and ethical issues and tensions. INESSS has recently adopted a Statement of Principles and Ethical Foundations which proposes a multidimensional approach to value appraisal as well as five principles to frame the evaluation process.

AREAS COVERED

Our aim was to identify and analyze HTA challenges for appraising interventions for rare diseases, using the Statement's approach to value appraisal as an analytical framework, and outline how the Statement's principles can help address these challenges. Challenges, covering a diversity of aspects, were identified by leveraging institutional experience in diverse domains of expertise and consolidated through narrative literature review. Challenges were categorized by value dimension (clinical, populational, economic, organizational, and sociocultural), which allowed to pinpoint how each challenge affects the ability to appraise the value of an intervention. Key ethical tensions across dimensions were also identified. Specific approaches to addressing these challenges - related to knowledge mobilization and integration, deliberation, and recommendation-making - were outlined on the basis of the principles promulgated in the Statement.

EXPERT OPINION

A multidimensional approach can be fruitful for analyzing challenges for appraising the value of rare disease interventions and help guide approaches to tackle them.

Priorities for rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease research in Ireland

Background

Research priority setting is a useful approach to decide which unanswered questions are most worth trying to solve through research. The aim is to reduce bias in the research agenda. Traditionally, research was decided by funders, policymakers, and academics with limited influence from other stakeholders like people living with health conditions, caregivers, or the community. This can lead to research gaps that fail to address these important stakeholder needs. The objective of this study is to identify the top research priorities for Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease (RMD) research in Ireland.

Methods

The process framework included a design workshop, two online surveys and a review of the literature.

Participants

545 people completed the first survey to identify RMD research topics relevant to Ireland, of which 72% identified as a person living with RMD. 460 people completed the second survey to prioritise these research topics.

Results

The first survey had 2185 research topics submitted. These were analysed and grouped into 38 topic areas which were ranked in the second survey. The top three research priorities for RMD research in Ireland focused on preventing RMD progression, RMD diagnosis and its impact, and pain management.

Conclusions

The prioritised research topics indicate important areas of RMD research for Ireland. Research funded in response to these co-created research priorities will have increased relevance and impact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00285-9.

Estimating and Comparing Health and Financial Risk Protection Outcomes in Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Improving health and financial risk protection (FRP, the prevention of medical impoverishment) and their distributions is a major objective of national health systems. Explicitly describing FRP and disaggregated (eg, across socioeconomic groups) impact of health interventions in economic evaluations can provide decision makers with a broader set of health and financial outcomes to compare and prioritize interventions against each other.

METHODS

We propose methods to synthesize such a broader set of outcomes by estimating and comparing the distributions in both health and FRP benefits procured by health interventions. We build on benefit-cost analysis frameworks and utility-based models, and we illustrate our methods with the case study of universal public finance (financing by government regardless of whom an intervention is targeting) of disease treatment in a low- and middle-income country setting.

RESULTS

Two key findings seem to emerge: FRP is critical when diseases are less lethal (eg, case fatality rates <1% or so), and quantitative valuation of inequality aversion across income groups matters greatly. We recommend the use of numerous sensitivity analyses and that all distributional health and financial outcomes be first presented in a disaggregated form (before potential subsequent aggregation).

CONCLUSIONS

Estimation approaches such as the one we propose provide explicit disaggregated considerations of equity, FRP, and poverty impact for the development of health sector policies, with high relevance for population-based preventive measures.

Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy, Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to "enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA."

Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia by using the framework of the strategic multi-attribute ranking tool for vaccines (SMART vaccines)

Background: Decision-making processes regarding new vaccine prioritizations are complex. The objective of this study was to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia.Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in this study. A preliminary data collection form was developed to collect country-specific data in relation to 30 pre-defined attributes. In particular, an open-ended questionnaire was conducted among targeted respondents from global level, national level and vaccine manufacturers, which were involved in the financial flows of new vaccine procurement in Indonesia. For setting new vaccines priorities, targeted respondents were asked to assign weight on 10 selected criteria.Results: Top 3 attributes with the highest weight from respondents were premature deaths averted per year, incident cases prevented per year, and cost-effectiveness. Applying criteria scores and weight assessment, the result showed that PCV, rotavirus, HPV, and JE would be on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank for setting new vaccine priority in Indonesia. There was a significant difference score (p value <0.05) between all these vaccines.Conclusions: PCV, rotavirus and HPV vaccines should be more prioritized than JE vaccine. This ranking is in line with the WHO's priority list, which potentially illustrates the validity and usefulness of our MCDA-approach.

Economic considerations on the usage of biologics in the allergy clinic

The advent of biologic therapies has transformed care for severe atopic disorders but their high cost poses new challenges with regard to long-term sustainability and fair allocation of resources. This article covers the basic concepts of cost-utility analyses and reviews the available literature on cost utility of biologic drugs in atopic disorders. When used within their limits as part of a multi-dimensional assessment, economic analyses can be extremely useful to guide decision-making and prioritization of care. Despite the good quality of most cost-utility analyses conducted for the use of biologics in asthma and other atopic diseases, their conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are extremely variable. This is mainly due to the use of inconsistent estimates of health utility benefit with therapy. Development of reliable and validated instruments to measure disutility in atopic disorders and measure of indirect costs in atopic disease are identified as a priority for future research.

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today’s severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda.

How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making

Innovations in vaccine product attributes could play an important role in addressing coverage and equity (C&E) gaps, but there is currently a poor understanding of the full system impact and trade-offs associated with investing in such technologies, both from the perspective of national immunisation programmes (NIPs) and vaccine developers. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) was developed as an approach to evaluate vaccines with different product attributes from a systems perspective, in order to analyse and compare the value of innovative vaccine products in different settings.

The TSE approach has been advanced over the years by various stakeholders including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Gavi, PATH, UNICEF and WHO. WHO further developed the TSE approach to incorporate the country perspective into immunisation decision-making, in order for countries to evaluate innovative products for introduction and product switch decisions, and for vaccine development stakeholders to conduct their assessments of product value in line with country preferences. This paper describes the original TSE approach, development of the tool and processes for NIPs to apply the WHO TSE approach, and results from piloting in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas. The WHO TSE framework emerged from this piloting effort.

The WHO TSE approach has been welcomed by NIP and vaccine development stakeholders as a useful tool to evaluate trade-offs between different products. It was emphasised that the concept of “total systems effectiveness” is likely to be context-specific and that TSE is valuable in facilitating a deliberative process to articulate NIP priorities, for decisions around product choice, and for prioritising the development of future vaccine innovations.

CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.

Objective

To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management.

Materials and methods

Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations.

Results

The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations.

Conclusions

This innovative CPG methodology was guided by patients' perspectives, clinical evidence as well as ethical and other rationales. This allowed for the creation of a broad set of recommendations that chart optimal clinical practice and define the conditions required to bring about changes to food allergy care that will be sustainable, equitable and conducive to the well-being of all patients in need.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward

OBJECTIVE

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context.

METHODS

The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds.

RESULTS

We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut)

BACKGROUND

Orphan medicines show some characteristics that hinder the evaluation of their clinical added value. The often low level of evidence available for orphan drugs, together with a high budget impact and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio many times higher than drugs used for non-orphan diseases, represent challenges in their appraisal and effective access to clinical use. In order to explore how to handle these hurdles, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) began an initiative on a multidimensional assessment of drugs value during the appraisal process. Reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using analytical methods was chosen, since it may help to standardise and contextualize all the relevant data related with the drug that could contribute to a decision. The aim of the study was to determine whether the implementation of reflective MCDA methodology could support the decision-making process about orphan medicines in the context of CatSalut.

METHODS

The assessment and decision-making process for orphan drugs in the Programa d'Harmonització Farmacoterapeutica (PHF) of CatSalut was prioritized to test the implementation of the reflective MCDA both a qualitative and quantitatively. A staged approach was used with the following main steps: selection and structuration of quantitative criteria (Core Model) and qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool), framework scoring and assessment of three orphan drug case studies. This proof-of-concept would grant a continued refinement of the methodology and, if and when validated, its potential integration to other therapeutic areas of the PHF.

RESULTS

The final framework was composed by 10 quantitative criteria (Core Model) and 4 qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool) according to the PHF goals being the most important criteria "disease severity", "unmet need", "comparative effectiveness" and "comparative safety /tolerability". The matrix developed for the case studies served as a guide for the selection of the essential information that the decision-makers were expected to include in a framework. The reflective discussion was considered the most relevant phase of the approach to support inputs for health decision-making processes reflecting both drug value and place in therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that reflective MCDA methodology could be implemented to complement the decision-making process in CatSalut, as an aid to determine the clinical added value for orphan medicines. MCDA provided transparency and a structured discussion during the committee meetings, thus increasing transparency and predictability of the relevant items supporting the agreements adopted on orphan drugs access.

Patient involvement in reflective multicriteria decision analysis to assist decision making in oncology

OBJECTIVES

Patient involvement in drug evaluation decision making is increasing. The aim of the current study was to develop a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework that would enable the inclusion of the patient perspective in the selection of appropriate criteria for MCDAs being used in the value assessments of oncologic drugs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify and define criteria used in drug assessments from patient perspectives. The Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making methodology was used to develop a MCDA framework. Identified criteria were discussed by a sample of oncology patient association representatives who decided which criteria were important from patient perspectives. Selected criteria were rated by importance. The preliminary MCDA framework was tested through the assessment of a hypothetical oncology treatment. A discussion was carried out to agree on a final pilot MCDA framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two criteria were extracted from the literature review. After criteria discussion, sixteen criteria remained. The most important criteria were comparative patient reported outcomes (PRO), comparative efficacy and disease severity. After the discussion generated by the scoring of the hypothetical oncology treatment, the final pilot MCDA framework included seven quantitative criteria ("disease severity", "unmet needs", "comparative efficacy / effectiveness", "comparative safety / tolerability", "comparative PROs", "contribution of oncological innovation") and one contextual criterion ("population priorities and access").

CONCLUSIONS

The present study developed a pilot reflective MCDA framework that could increase patient's capability to participate in the decision-making process by providing systematic drug assessments from the patient perspective.

How can MCDA tools improve priority setting? Four critical questions

This comment argues that four critical questions needs to be resolved before MCDA tools can improve priority setting in health: how to merge the quantitative and deliberative elements of MCDA; how to select criteria; how to weigh them, and whom to bring to the table.

Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? The EVIDEM journey

Background

Multiple technologies, procedures and programs call for fairly-based decisions for prioritization of healthcare interventions. There is a diversity of perspectives of what constitutes a legitimate decision, which depends on both the process and the reasoning applied. Current approaches focus on technical aspects while methods to support alignment of decisions with the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems is lacking.

Methods

The framework was developed based on an analysis of the foundations of healthcare systems, the reasoning underlying decisions and fair processes. The concept of reflective multicriteria was created: it assumes that decisionmakers guided by a generic interpretative frame rooted in the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems, can sharpen their reasoning, raise awareness of their motivation and increase legitimacy of decisions. The initial framework was made available through a not for profit organization (the EVIDEM Collaboration, 2006–2017) to stimulate its development with thought leaders and stakeholders in an open source philosophy. Development was tailored to the real-life needs of decisionmakers and drew on several domains of knowledge including healthcare ethics, evidenced-based medicine, health economics, health technology assessment and multicriteria approaches.

Results

The 10th edition framework builds on four dimensions: (1) the universal impetus of healthcare systems, (2) reasoning, values and ethics, (3) evidence and knowledge on interventions, and (4) a transformative process. Mathematical aspects of the framework are designed to help clarify, express and share individual reasoning; this non-conventional use of numbers requires a cultural change and needs to be phased in slowly. The framework includes four tools for easy adaptation and operationalization: (a) concepts and operationalization, (b) adapt and pilot, (c) evidence matrix, (d) mathematical representation of reasoning. Application is useful throughout all types of healthcare interventions, for all levels of decision, and across the globe.

Conclusion

By clarifying their reasoning while keeping decisionmakers aware of the impetus of healthcare systems, reflective multicriteria provides an effective approach to increase the legitimacy of decisions. Beyond a tool, reflective multicriteria pioneered by EVIDEM is geared to transform our vision of the value of healthcare interventions and how they might contribute to relevant, equitable and sustainable healthcare systems.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy

How can evidence from economic evaluations of the type the Disease Control Priorities project have synthesized be translated to better priority setting? This evidence provides insights into how investing in health, particularly though priority interventions and expanded access to health insurance and prepaid care, can not only save lives but also help alleviate poverty and provide financial risk protection. The article discusses some of the relevant factors needed to develop a Theory of Change for translating economic evidence to better priority setting within countries, and proposes some key strategic choices that are necessary to achieve the desired outputs and outcomes.

EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE

Objectives: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease.

Methods: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise.

Results: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions’ values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of “alleviating or preventing patient suffering,” “serving the whole population equitably,” “upholding healthcare system sustainability,” and “making decisions informed by evidence and context” but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating “Priorities” (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives.

Conclusions: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.