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.

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.

GrowthHormone Research Society workshop summary: consensus guidelines for recombinant human growth hormone therapy in Prader-Willi syndrome.

CONTEXT: Recombinant human GH (rhGH) therapy in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) has been used by the medical community and advocated by parental support groups since its approval in the United States in 2000 and in Europe in 2001. Its use in PWS represents a unique therapeutic challenge that includes treating individuals with cognitive disability, varied therapeutic goals that are not focused exclusively on increased height, and concerns about potential life-threatening adverse events. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to formulate recommendations for the use of rhGH in children and adult patients with PWS. EVIDENCE: We performed a systematic review of the clinical evidence in the pediatric population, including randomized controlled trials, comparative observational studies, and long-term studies (>3.5 y). Adult studies included randomized controlled trials of rhGH treatment for ≥ 6 months and uncontrolled trials. Safety data were obtained from case reports, clinical trials, and pharmaceutical registries. METHODOLOGY: Forty-three international experts and stakeholders followed clinical practice guideline development recommendations outlined by the AGREE Collaboration (www.agreetrust.org). Evidence was synthesized and graded using a comprehensive multicriteria methodology (EVIDEM) (http://bit.ly.PWGHIN). CONCLUSIONS: Following a multidisciplinary evaluation, preferably by experts, rhGH treatment should be considered for patients with genetically confirmed PWS in conjunction with dietary, environmental, and lifestyle interventions. Cognitive impairment should not be a barrier to treatment, and informed consent/assent should include benefit/risk information. Exclusion criteria should include severe obesity, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea, active cancer, or psychosis. Clinical outcome priorities should vary depending upon age and the presence of physical, mental, and social disability, and treatment should be continued for as long as demonstrated benefits outweigh the risks.