The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review.

decision-making healthcare multicriteria decision analysis priority-setting systematic literature review

Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2023
Historique:
received: 10 05 2022
revised: 10 10 2022
accepted: 17 11 2022
medline: 2 5 2023
pubmed: 28 11 2022
entrez: 27 11 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of MCDA studies performed to inform decisions in healthcare and to summarize its application in different decision contexts. We updated a systematic review conducted in 2013 by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for MCDA studies in healthcare, published in English between August 2013 and November 2020. We also expanded the search by reviewing grey literature found via Trip Medical Database and Google, published between January 1990 and November 2020. A comprehensive template was developed to extract information about the decision context, criteria, methods, stakeholders involved, and sensitivity analyses conducted. From the 4295 identified studies, 473 studies were eligible for full-text review after assessing titles and abstracts. Of those, 228 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The use of MCDA continues to grow in healthcare literature, with most of the studies (49%) informing priority-setting decisions. Safety, cost, and quality of care delivery are the most frequently used criteria, although there are considerable differences across decision contexts. Almost half of the MCDA studies used the linear additive model whereas scales and the analytical hierarchy process were the most used techniques for scoring and weighting, respectively. Not all studies report on each one of the MCDA steps, consider axiomatic properties, or justify the methods used. A guide on how to conduct and report MCDA that acknowledges the particularities of the different decision contexts and methods needs to be developed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36436791
pii: S1098-3015(22)04738-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

780-790

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Pamela Gongora-Salazar (P)

Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK. Electronic address: pamela.gongora@ndph.ok.ac.uk.

Stephen Rocks (S)

The Health Foundation, London, England, UK.

Patrick Fahr (P)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.

Oliver Rivero-Arias (O)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.

Apostolos Tsiachristas (A)

Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH