Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gather qualitative and quantitative data on criteria considered by healthcare decision makers. METHODS: Using snowball sampling and an online questionnaire with forty-three criteria organized into ten clusters, decision makers were invited by an international task force to report which criteria they consider when making decisions on healthcare interventions in their context. Respondents reported whether each criterion is "currently considered," "should be considered," and its relative weight (scale 0-5). Differences in proportions of respondents were explored with inferential statistics across levels of decision (micro, meso, macro), decision maker perspectives, and world regions. RESULTS: A total of 140 decision makers (1/3 clinical, 2/3 policy) from 23 countries in five continents completed the survey. The most relevant criteria (top ranked for "Currently considered," "Should be considered," and weights) were Clinical efficacy/effectiveness, Safety, Quality of evidence, Disease severity, and Impact on healthcare costs. Organizational and skill requirements were frequently considered but had relatively low weights. For almost all criteria, a higher proportion of decision makers reported that they "Should be considered" than that they are "Currently considered" (p < .05). For more than 74 percent of criteria, there were no statistical differences in proportions across levels of decision, perspectives and world regions. Statistically significant differences across several comparisons were found for: Population priorities, Stakeholder pressure/interests, Capacity to stimulate research, Impact on partnership and collaboration, and Environmental impact. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest convergence among decision makers on the relevance of a core set of criteria and on the need to consider a wider range of criteria. Areas of divergence appear to be principally related to contextual factors.

Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Systematic and transparent approaches to priority setting are needed, particularly in low-resource settings, to produce decisions that are sound and acceptable to stakeholders. The EVIDEM framework brings together Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by proposing a comprehensive set of decision criteria together with standardized processes to support decisionmaking. The objective of the study was to field test the framework for decisionmaking on a screening test by a private health plan in South Africa. METHODS: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening was selected by the health plan for this field test. An HTA report structured by decision criterion (14 criteria organized in the MCDA matrix and 4 contextual criteria) was produced based on a literature review and input from the health plan. During workshop sessions, committee members 1) weighted each MCDA decision criterion to express their individual perspectives, and 2) to appraise LBC, assigned scores to each MCDA criterion on the basis of the by-criterion HTA report.Committee members then considered the potential impacts of four contextual criteria on the use of LBC in the context of their health plan. Feedback on the framework and process was collected through discussion and from a questionnaire. RESULTS: For 9 of the MCDA matrix decision criteria, 89% or more of committee members thought they should always be considered in decisionmaking. Greatest weights were given to the criteria "Budget impact", "Cost-effectiveness" and "Completeness and consistency of reporting evidence". When appraising LBC for cervical cancer screening, the committee assigned the highest scores to "Relevance and validity of evidence" and "Disease severity". Combination of weights and scores yielded a mean MCDA value estimate of 46% (SD 7%) of the potential maximum value. Overall, the committee felt the framework brought greater clarity to the decisionmaking process and was easily adaptable to different types of health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making.

From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking.

OBJECTIVES: Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. METHOD: An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. RESULTS: Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.

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.

BACKGROUND: Consistent healthcare decision making requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time. METHODS: Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates. RESULTS: The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee. CONCLUSIONS: By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.

Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.

OBJECTIVES: To test and further develop a healthcare policy and clinical decision support framework using growth hormone (GH) for Turner syndrome (TS) as a complex case study. METHODS: The EVIDEM framework was further developed to complement the multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix, that includes 15 quantifiable components of decision clustered in four domains (quality of evidence, disease, intervention and economics), with a qualitative tool including six ethical and health system-related components of decision. An extensive review of the literature was performed to develop a health technology assessment report (HTA) tailored to each component of decision, and content was validated by experts. A panel of representative stakeholders then estimated the MCDA value of GH for TS in Canada by assigning weights and scores to each MCDA component of decision and then considered the impact of non-quantifiable components of decision. RESULTS: Applying the framework revealed significant data gaps and the importance of aligning research questions with data needs to truly inform decision. Panelists estimated the value of GH for TS at 41% of maximum value on the MCDA scale, with good agreement at the individual level (retest value 40%; ICC: 0.687) and large variation across panelists. Main contributors to this panel specific value were "Improvement of efficacy", "Disease severity" and "Quality of evidence". Ethical considerations on utility, efficiency and fairness as well as potential misuse of GH had mixed effects on the perceived value of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This framework is proposed as a pragmatic step beyond the current cost-effectiveness model, combining HTA, MCDA, values and ethics. It supports systematic consideration of all components of decision and available evidence for greater transparency. Further testing and validation is needed to build up MCDA approaches combined with pragmatic HTA in healthcare decision-making.

The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.

OBJECTIVES: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Health Science Policy Council recommended and the ISPOR Board of Directors approved the formation of a Task Force to critically examine the major issues related to Quality Improvement in Cost-effectiveness Research (QICER). The Council's primary recommendation for this Task Force was that it should report on the quality of cost-effectiveness research and make recommendations to facilitate the improvement of pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes research and its use in stimulating better health care and policy. Task force members were knowledgeable and experienced in medicine, pharmacy, biostatistics, health policy and health-care decision-making, biomedical knowledge transfer, health economics, and pharmacoeconomics. They were drawn from industry, academia, consulting organizations, and advisors to governments and came from Japan, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States. METHODS: Face-to-face meetings of the Task Force were held at ISPOR North American and European meetings and teleconferences occurred every few months. Literature reviews and surveys were conducted and the first preliminary findings presented at an open forum at the May 2008 ISPOR meeting in Toronto. The final draft report was circulated to the expert reviewer group and then to the entire membership for comment. The draft report was posted on the ISPOR Web site in April 2009. All formal comments received were posted to the association Web site and presented for discussion at the Task Force forum during the ISPOR 14th Annual International Meeting in May 2009. Comments and feedback from the forums, reviewers and membership were considered in the final report. Once Task Force consensus was reached, the article was submitted to Value in Health. CONCLUSIONS: The QICER Task Force recommends that ISPOR implement the following: * With respect to CER guidelines, that ISPOR promote harmonization of guidelines, allowing for differences in application, regional needs and politics; evaluate available instruments or promote development of a new one that will allow standardized quantification of the impact of CER guidelines on the quality of CER studies; report periodically on those countries or regions that have developed guidelines; periodically evaluate the quality of published studies (those journals with CER guidances) or those submitted to decision-making bodies (as public transparency increases). * With respect to methodologies, that ISPOR promote publication of methodological guidelines in more applied journals in more easily understandable format to transfer knowledge to researchers who need to apply more rigorous methods; promote full availability of models in electronic format to combat space restrictions in hardcopy publications; promote consistency of methodological review for all CER studies; promote adoption of explicit best practices guidelines among regulatory and reimbursement authorities; periodically update all ISPOR Task Force reports; periodically review use of ISPOR Task Force guidelines; periodically report on statistical and methodological challenges in HE; evaluate periodically whether ISPOR's methodological guidelines lead to improved quality; and support training and knowledge transfer of rigorous CER methodologies to researchers and health care decision-makers. * With respect to publications, that ISPOR develop standard CER guidances to which journals will be able to refer their authors and their reviewers; lobby to establish these guidances within the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Requirements to which most journals refer in their Author Instructions; provide support in terms of additional reviewer expertise to those journals lacking appropriate reviewers; periodically report on journals publishing CER research; periodically report on the quality of CER publications; and support training and knowledge transfer of the use of these guidelines to researchers and reviewers. * With respect to evidence-based health-care decision-making, that ISPOR recognize at its annual meetings those countries/agencies/private companies/researchers using CER well, and those practitioners and researchers supporting good patient use of CER in decision-making; and promote public presentation of case studies of applied use of CER concepts or guidelines.

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare decisionmaking is a complex process relying on disparate types of evidence and value judgments. Our objectives for this study were to develop a practical framework to facilitate decisionmaking in terms of supporting the deliberative process, providing access to evidence, and enhancing the communication of decisions. METHODS: Extensive analyses of the literature and of documented decisionmaking processes around the globe were performed to explore what steps are currently used to make decisions with respect to context (from evidence generation to communication of decision) and thought process (conceptual components of decisions). Needs and methodologies available to support decisionmaking were identified to lay the groundwork for the EVIDEM framework. RESULTS: A framework was developed consisting of seven modules that can evolve over the life cycle of a healthcare intervention. Components of decision that could be quantified, i.e., intrinsic value of a healthcare intervention and quality of evidence available, were organized into matrices. A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix (VM) was developed to include the 15 quantifiable components that are currently considered in decisionmaking. A methodology to synthesize the evidence needed for each component of the VM was developed including electronic access to full text source documents. A Quality Matrix was designed to quantify three criteria of quality for the 12 types of evidence usually required by decisionmakers. An integrated system was developed to optimize data analysis, synthesis and validation by experts, compatible with a collaborative structure. CONCLUSION: The EVIDEM framework promotes transparent and efficient healthcare decisionmaking through systematic assessment and dissemination of the evidence and values on which decisions are based. It provides a collaborative framework that could connect all stakeholders and serve the healthcare community at local, national and international levels by allowing sharing of data, resources and values. Validation and further development is needed to explore the full potential of this approach.

Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation.

BACKGROUND: The multiplicity of issues, including uncertainty and ethical dilemmas, and policies involved in appraising interventions for rare diseases suggests that multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on a holistic definition of value is uniquely suited for this purpose. The objective of this study was to analyze and further develop a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM) to address rare disease issues and policies, while maintaining its applicability across disease areas. METHODS: Specific issues and policies for rare diseases were identified through literature review. Ethical and methodological foundations of the EVIDEM framework v3.0 were systematically analyzed from the perspective of these issues, and policies and modifications of the framework were performed accordingly to ensure their integration. RESULTS: Analysis showed that the framework integrates ethical dilemmas and issues inherent to appraising interventions for rare diseases but required further integration of specific aspects. Modification thus included the addition of subcriteria to further differentiate disease severity, disease-specific treatment outcomes, and economic consequences of interventions for rare diseases. Scoring scales were further developed to include negative scales for all comparative criteria. A methodology was established to incorporate context-specific population priorities and policies, such as those for rare diseases, into the quantitative part of the framework. This design allows making more explicit trade-offs between competing ethical positions of fairness (prioritization of those who are worst off), the goal of benefiting as many people as possible, the imperative to help, and wise use of knowledge and resources. It also allows addressing variability in institutional policies regarding prioritization of specific disease areas, in addition to existing uncertainty analysis available from EVIDEM. CONCLUSION: The adapted framework measures value in its widest sense, while being responsive to rare disease issues and policies. It provides an operationalizable platform to integrate values, competing ethical dilemmas, and uncertainty in appraising healthcare interventions.

Economic impact of the reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure treated with enalapril.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of heart failure (HF) is linked to embolic stroke and exacerbation of HF. The rate of new-onset AF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and mild to moderate HF enrolled in the SoLVD trials was significantly lower with enalapril than with placebo (5.4% vs 24% over 2.9 years, P < .0001). The objective of this study was to predict economic benefits over 5 and 10 years of reduced AF incidence in patients receiving enalapril for the treatment of HF from a Canadian third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Consequences of reduced incidence of AF in enalapril-treated patients were modeled using a Markov model. Patients were assigned to 1 health state: no AF, AF, poststroke, or death, and moved from one state to the other according to published incidence rates. It was assumed that most patients with AF would receive warfarin for stroke prevention. Resource use and costs were mostly retrieved from published Canadian studies. RESULTS: Reduced incidence of AF resulted in savings of 382 dollars and 525 dollars per patient treated with enalapril over 5 and 10 years, respectively, which stemmed mainly from reduced AF hospitalization and less need for warfarin and amiodarone. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that enalapril becomes more cost saving as the baseline risk for embolic stroke in patients with AF increases and the use of warfarin prophylaxis decreases. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced incidence of AF with enalapril leads to significant clinical and economic advantages on top of the already well-established benefits of enalapril for patients with HF.

Implementation and outcomes of commercial disease management programs in the United States: the disease management outcomes consolidation survey.

Despite widespread adoption of disease management (DM) programs by US health plans, gaps remain in the evidence for their benefit. The Disease Management Outcomes Consolidation Survey was designed to gather data on DM programs for commercial health plans, to assess program success and DM effectiveness. The questionnaire was mailed to 292 appropriate health plan contacts; 26 plans covering more than 14 million commercial members completed and returned the survey. Respondents reported that DM plays a significant and increasing role in their organizations. Key reasons for adopting DM were improving clinical outcomes, reducing medical costs and utilization, and improving member satisfaction. More respondents were highly satisfied with clinical results than with utilization or cost outcomes of their programs (46%, 17%, and 13%, respectively). Detailed results were analyzed for 57 DM programs with over 230,000 enrollees. Most responding plans offered DM programs for diabetes and asthma, with return on investment (ROI) ranging from 0.16:1 to 4:1. Weighted by number of enrollees per DM program, average ROI was 2.56:1 for asthma (n = 1,136 enrollees) and 1.98:1 for diabetes (n = 25,364). Most (but not all) respondents reported reduced hospital admissions, increasing rates of preventive care, and improved clinical measures. Few respondents provided detailed information about DM programs for other medical conditions, but most that did reported positive outcomes. Lack of standardized methodology was identified as a major barrier to in-house program evaluation. Although low response rate precluded drawing many general conclusions, a clear need emerged for more rigorous evaluation methods and greater standardization of outcomes measurement.

Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Health care decision making is complex and requires efficient and explicit processes to ensure transparency and consistency of factors considered. OBJECTIVES: To pilot an adaptable decision-making framework incorporating multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health technology assessment (HTA) with a pan-Canadian group of policy and clinical decision makers and researchers appraising 10 medicines covering 6 therapeutic areas. METHODS: An appraisal group was convened and participants were asked to express their individual perspectives, independently of the medicines, by assigning weights to each criterion of the MCDA core model: disease severity, size of population, current practice and unmet needs, intervention outcomes (efficacy, safety, patient reported), type of health benefit, economics, and quality of evidence. Participants then assigned performance scores for each medicine using available evidence synthesized in a "by-criterion" HTA report covering each of the MCDA CORE model criteria. MCDA estimates of perceived value were calculated by combining normalized weights and scores. Feedback on the approach was collected through structured discussion. RESULTS: Relative weights on criteria varied widely, reflecting the diverse perspectives of participants. Scores for each criterion provided a performance measure, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each medicine. MCDA estimates of perceived value ranged from 0.42 to 0.64 across medicines, providing comprehensive measures incorporating a large spectrum of criteria. Participants reported that the framework provided an efficient approach to systematic consideration in a pragmatic format of the multiple elements guiding decision, including criteria and values (MCDA core model) and evidence (HTA "by-criterion" report). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study demonstrated the usefulness of incorporating MCDA in HTA to support transparent and systematic appraisal of health care interventions. Further research is needed to advance MCDA-based approaches to more effective healthcare decision making.