Many health care decisions are complex and require consideration of multiple, often conflicting objectives. They involve trade-offs that decision makers find challenging or on which they disagree. For instance, regulators often have to assess whether the benefits of a drug are sufficient to accept its safety risks.
Lead author Kevin Marsh stated, 鈥淒ecision makers, whether they are individuals, payers, or health ministries, often have difficulty processing and systematically evaluating potential treatment options and the numerous disparate factors impacting them. This set of techniques known as multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can significantly improve the quality of complicated health care decisions.鈥�
This second MCDA Task Force Report builds on the foundational Report #1, 鈥�,鈥� published in the January/February 2016 issue of .
Co-author Maarten IJzerman explained, 鈥淲hile many MCDA methods exist, there is currently insufficient guidance on how to choose the right technique for a specific health care issue. The good practice guidelines provide an overview of the available MCDA methods and the principles to apply in choosing an appropriate method for a particular problem or decision.鈥�
The Task Force also developed a valuable checklist, the ISPOR MCDA Good Practice Guidelines Checklist, that outlines the steps for implementing MCDA. Finally, the capacity of MCDA to incorporate patients鈥� preferences on benefits and trade-offs of treatment options is an important benefit to all stakeholders.
ABOUT ISPORThe International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) is a nonprofit, international, educational and scientific organization that promotes health economics and outcomes research excellence to improve decision making for health globally. Web: | LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/ISPOR-LIn | Twitter: http://bit.ly/ISPOR-T (@ISPORorg) | YouTube: http://bit.ly/ISPOR-YT |Facebook: http://bit.ly/ISPOR-FB
ABOUT VALUE IN HEALTH: (ISSN 1098-3015) publishes papers, concepts, and ideas that advance the field of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research as well as policy papers to help health care leaders make evidence-based decisions. The journal enjoys a 5-year Impact Factor of 3.373 and is ranked 7th out of 71 journals in health policy and services (social sciences), 13th out of 89 in health care sciences and services, and 14th out of 333 in economics (social sciences). Value in Health is published bi-monthly and has over 8,000 subscribers (clinicians, decision makers, and researchers worldwide).Web: | Twitter: (@ISPORjournals)
RSS