Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients
- 383 Downloads
Qualitative methods tend to be used to incorporate patient preferences into healthcare decision making. However, for patient preferences to be given adequate consideration by decision makers they need to be quantified. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one way to quantify and capture the patient voice. The objective of this review was to report on existing MCDAs involving patients to support the future use of MCDA to capture the patient voice.
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in June 2014 for English-language papers with no date restriction. The following search terms were used: ‘multi-criteria decision*’, ‘multiple criteria decision*’, ‘MCDA’, ‘benefit risk assessment*’, ‘risk benefit assessment*’, ‘multicriteri* decision*’, ‘MCDM’, ‘multi-criteri* decision*’. Abstracts were included if they reported the application of MCDA to assess healthcare interventions where patients were the source of weights. Abstracts were excluded if they did not apply MCDA, such as discussions of how MCDA could be used; or did not evaluate healthcare interventions, such as MCDAs to assess the level of health need in a locality. Data were extracted on weighting method, variation in patient and expert preferences, and discussion on different weighting techniques.
The review identified ten English-language studies that reported an MCDA to assess healthcare interventions and involved patients as a source of weights. These studies reported 12 applications of MCDA. Different methods of preference elicitation were employed: direct weighting in workshops; discrete choice experiment surveys; and the analytical hierarchy process using both workshops and surveys. There was significant heterogeneity in patient responses and differences between patients, who put greater weight on disease characteristics and treatment convenience, and experts, who put more weight on efficacy. The studies highlighted cognitive challenges associated with some weighting methods, though patients’ views on their ability to undertake weighting tasks was positive.
This review identified several recent examples of MCDA used to elicit patient preferences, which support the feasibility of using MCDA to capture the patient voice. Challenges identified included, how best to reflect the heterogeneity of patient preferences in decision making and how to manage the cognitive burden associated with some MCDA tasks.
KeywordsHealth Technology Assessment Discrete Choice Experiment Multiple Criterion Decision Benefit Risk Assessment Weighting Technique
The authors would like to thank Evan Davies, Tereza Lanitis, David Neasham and Panos Orfanos at Evidera for their support in reviewing abstracts and full texts.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Evidera received financial assistance from Sanofi-Genzyme to conduct the study and assist in preparing the manuscript. Authors Kevin Marsh, Erica Zaiser and Jaime Caro are all employees of Evidera. Alaa Hamed is an employee of Sanofi-Genzyme.
Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a contract with Sanofi-Genzyme. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following author is employed by the sponsor: Alaa Hamed.
All authors contributed to the conception, design and writing of this manuscript. KM and EZ were responsible for the implementation of the review.
- 5.Pollack A. Viagra for Women’ is back by FDA Panel. New York: The New York Times; 2015.Google Scholar
- 6.Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves first treatment for sexual desire disorder. 2015 November 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm458734.htm.
- 7.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). National priorities for research and research agenda. 2012.Google Scholar
- 8.European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pilot phase to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. EMA/372554/2014—rev. 12014.Google Scholar
- 9.Mullin T. Patient-focused drug development. 2012 November 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/UCM310754.pdf.
- 10.Food and Drug Administration (FDA). About the patient representative program. 2015 November 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/About/ucm412709.htm.
- 16.Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.Google Scholar
- 18.Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Office of Health Economics, London. 2011.Google Scholar
- 20.Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG). Determine patient preferences by means of Conjoint Analysis. 2014 April 2015. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/press/press-releases/press-releases/determine-patient-preferences-by-means-of-conjoint-analysis.6227.html.
- 21.Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG). Choice-based conjoint analysis—pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. 2014.Google Scholar
- 23.Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.Google Scholar
- 25.De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S. Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S, editors. Alternatives for environmental evaluation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2005.Google Scholar
- 26.International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Multi-criteria decision analysis in health care decision making—emerging good practices task force. 2015 November 2015. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/multi-criteria-decision-analysis-grp.asp.
- 28.Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Working paper no. 7. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. 2011.Google Scholar
- 29.Broekhuizen H. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in an MCDA model for quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Netherlands: University of Twente; 2012.Google Scholar
- 36.Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar