Brief Report

Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in Health Technology Policy Making: Background, Current Challenges and Path to Future

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction: The science of health technology policy-making has, in recent years, gone beyond merely conducting health technology assessment studies, systematic reviews or economic evaluations. In fact, sciences based on decision-making in operational research, such as multi-attribute and multi-objective decision-making methods, have been added to this field.
Methods: Examining several prominent papers in the field of applying multi-criteria decision analysis to the science of health technology assessment, this study attempts to provide guidance for policy makers in the field of health technologies to acquaint them with the history current challenges, and the future of this field.
Results: Mathematical approaches based on multi-criteria decision analysis began to be used in the fields of health policy making and economics in 2006 and 2008. These approaches are still being completed to adapt to the field of health. The main challenges in this regard are the existence of attributes such as equity and ethical issues facing the use of technology in health systems. The quantitative assessment of such attributes is really demanding. It is also very difficult to weight the attributes in such a way that all the considerations regarding
technology stakeholders can be taken into account.
Conclusions: In general, the application of approaches from applied mathematics to the field of health technology policy making can help us clarify the prioritization process. At the same time, however, using the efforts made so far by researchers in this field from around the world, we have, to a large extent, been able to overcome the operational shortcomings in applying those approaches in the field of health.

References
1. Dehnavieh R, Rashidian A, et al. Challenges of determining basic health insurance package in Iran. Payesh. 2011;10(2):273-83.
2. Ravaghi H, Akbari Sari A, Sarvari S, M M. The Effectiveness of PET-Scan in Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC) and Lymphoma: A Comprehensive Review of Literature. Journal of Isfahan Medical School. 2012;29(167):1-10.
3. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes. A practical guide for HTA agencies to enhance legitimate decision-making. Version 1.0. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Centre. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences. 2019.
4. Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, et al. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;69:596-609.
5. Hansen P, Devlin N. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in healthcare decision-making. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance2019.
6. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation. 2006;4(1):1-9.
7. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC health services research. 2008;8(1):1-16.
8. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value in health. 2012;15(6):961-70.
9. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Grégoire J-P, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2010;8(1):1-15.
10. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2010;26(3):341.
11. Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour AA, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi SJ. A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2016;24(1):1-12.
12. Mobinizadeh M, Mohamadi E, Arman H, Nasiripour A, Olyaeemanesh A, Mohamadi S. Topic selection for health technology assessment: An approach combining multiple attribute decision making and decision rules. Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI). 2021;35(1):305-13.
13. Dhalla I, Laupacis A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. Cmaj. 2008;178(4):428-31.
14. Hutton J, Trueman P, Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2008;24(4):511-7.
15. Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC health services research. 2011;11(1):1-13.
16. Viyanchi A, Rasekh HR, Ghatari AR, SafiKhani HR. Selecting the acceptance criteria of medicines in the reimbursement list of public health insurance of Iran, using the “Borda” method: a pilot study. Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research: IJPR. 2015;14(4):1305.
17. Jaramillo HEC, Goetghebeur M, Moreno-Mattar O. Testing multi-criteria decision analysis for more transparent resource-allocation decision making in Colombia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):307-14.
18. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2014;14(1):81-99.
19. Bertram M, Dhaene G, Tan-Torres Edejer T, Organization WH. Institutionalizing health technology assessment mechanisms: a how to guide. 2021.
20. Kolasa K, Zwolinski KM, Kalo Z, Hermanowski T. Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs. Orphanet journal of rare diseases. 2016;11(1):1-12.
21. Schey C, Krabbe P, Postma M, Connolly M. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Orphanet journal of rare diseases. 2017;12(1):1-9.
22. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Medical decision making. 2012;32(2):376-88.
23. Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, Diaby V, Castro H, Cleemput I, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value in Health. 2019;22(11):1283-8.
Files
IssueVol 5, No 4 (2021) QRcode
SectionBrief Report
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v5i4.10165
Keywords
Multi-Criteria Decision Making Health Technology Policy Making
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Mobinizadeh M, Olyaeemanesh A, Mohammadshahi M, Fakorfard Z. Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in Health Technology Policy Making: Background, Current Challenges and Path to Future. Health Tech Ass Act. 2022;5(4).