RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Across Western Europe, procedures and formalised criteria for taking decisions on the coverage (inclusion in the benefits basket or equivalent) of healthcare technologies vary substantially. In the decision documents, which display the justification of, the rationale for, these decisions, national healthcare institutes may employ 'contextual factors,' defined here as situation-specific considerations. Little is known about how the use of such contextual factors compares across countries. We describe and compare contextual factors as used in coverage decisions generally and 4 decision documents specifically in Belgium, England, Germany, and the Netherlands. METHODS: Four group interviews with 3 experts from the national healthcare institute of each country, document and web site analysis, and a workshop with 1 to 2 of these experts per country were followed by the examination of the documents of 4 specific decisions taken in each of the 4 countries, sampled to vary widely in type of technology and decision outcome. RESULTS: From the available decision documents, we conclude that in every country studied, contextual factors are established 'around the table,' ie, in deliberation. All documents examined feature contextual factors, with similar contextual factor patterns leading to similar decisions in different countries. The Dutch decisions employ the widest variety of factors, with the exception of the societal functioning of the patient, which is relatively common in Belgium, England, and Germany. Half of the final decisions were taken in another setting, with the consequence that no documentation was retrievable for 2 decisions. CONCLUSION: First, we conclude that in these countries, contextual factors are actively integrated in the decision document, and that this is achieved in deliberation. Conceptualising contextual factors as both situation-specific and actively-integrated affords insight into practices of contextualisation and provides an encouragement for exchange between decision-makers on more qualitative aspects of decisions. Second, the decisions that lacked a publicly accessible justification of the final decision document raised questions on the decisions' legitimacy. Further research could address patterning of contextual factors, elucidate why some factors may remain implicit, and how decisions without a publicly available decision document may enable or restrain decision-making practice.
Assuntos
Atenção à Saúde , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Tomada de Decisões , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Qualidade de VidaAssuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Aprovação de Drogas/organização & administração , Inglaterra , Europa (Continente) , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Neoplasias/economia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMO
Health care decisions are complex and involve confronting trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting objectives. Using structured, explicit approaches to decisions involving multiple criteria can improve the quality of decision making. A set of techniques, known under the collective heading, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), are useful for this purpose. In 2014, ISPOR established an Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The task force's first report defined MCDA, provided examples of its use in health care, described the key steps, and provided an overview of the principal methods of MCDA. This second task force report provides emerging good-practice guidance on the implementation of MCDA to support health care decisions. The report includes: a checklist to support the design, implementation and review of an MCDA; guidance to support the implementation of the checklist; the order in which the steps should be implemented; illustrates how to incorporate budget constraints into an MCDA; provides an overview of the skills and resources, including available software, required to implement MCDA; and future research directions.
Assuntos
Comitês Consultivos , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/economia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/economia , Orçamentos , Lista de Checagem , Comportamento Cooperativo , Análise Custo-Benefício , Guias como Assunto , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/normas , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/normas , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Modelos Econômicos , Modelos Estatísticos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/normasRESUMO
Health care decisions are complex and involve confronting trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting, objectives. Using structured, explicit approaches to decisions involving multiple criteria can improve the quality of decision making and a set of techniques, known under the collective heading multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), are useful for this purpose. MCDA methods are widely used in other sectors, and recently there has been an increase in health care applications. In 2014, ISPOR established an MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. It was charged with establishing a common definition for MCDA in health care decision making and developing good practice guidelines for conducting MCDA to aid health care decision making. This initial ISPOR MCDA task force report provides an introduction to MCDA - it defines MCDA; provides examples of its use in different kinds of decision making in health care (including benefit risk analysis, health technology assessment, resource allocation, portfolio decision analysis, shared patient clinician decision making and prioritizing patients' access to services); provides an overview of the principal methods of MCDA; and describes the key steps involved. Upon reviewing this report, readers should have a solid overview of MCDA methods and their potential for supporting health care decision making.