Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients

Kevin Marsh (), J. Jaime Caro, Alaa Hamed and Erica Zaiser
Additional contact information
Kevin Marsh: Evidera
J. Jaime Caro: Evidera
Alaa Hamed: Sanofi Genzyme
Erica Zaiser: Evidera

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, vol. 15, issue 2, No 4, 155-162

Abstract: Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Keywords: Health Technology Assessment; Discrete Choice Experiment; Multiple Criterion Decision; Benefit Risk Assessment; Weighting Technique (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0299-1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().