A Generic Rapid Evaluation Support Tool (GREST) for Clinical and Commissioning Decisions.

A fast and frugal generic tool can provide decision support to those making decisions about individual cases, particularly clinicians and clinical commissioners operating within the budget and time constraints of their practices. The multi-national Generic Rapid Evaluation Support Tool (GREST) is a standard preference-sensitive Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis-based tool, but innovatory insofar as an equity criterion is introduced as one of six. Equity impact reflects the number of population QALYs lost or gained in moving from Old (current intervention) to New (contemplated intervention). In the exemplar UK implementation Claxton's NHS Willingness to Pay per QALY is the numeraire. Any weight from 0 to 100% may be assigned to the equity criterion but its presence affirms that it is persons-as-citizens who experience any opportunity harms or benefits arising from actions within the health service commons. A fully-operational but demonstration-only version is available on open access, as proof of concept and method.

Separating Risk Assessment from Risk Management Poses Legal and Ethical Problems in Person-Centred Care.

Accelerating progress in screening technologies, e.g. genetic testing, means more individuals are facing the stressful decision of whether to request the test. Fully-informed and preference-based consent, as well as ethical practice, requires the full range of benefits and harms from any test or treatment to be identified and assessed from the individual's point of view. For both ethical and legal reasons, we see the decision on whether to undertake a genetic screening test being increasingly seen, in future, as calling for a personalised analysis of the full range of subsequent management options. The conventional dissociation of 'risk assessment' and 'risk management' phases is thereby ruled out. One way of addressing the resulting challenge is through personalised multi-criterial decision support tools. In this vision paper we provide conceptual proof of method of how such an interactive online tool could function. The polygenetic genetic screening decision is used, solely as illustration.

Addressing preference heterogeneity in public health policy by combining Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Proof of Method.

The use of subgroups based on biological-clinical and socio-demographic variables to deal with population heterogeneity is well-established in public policy. The use of subgroups based on preferences is rare, except when religion based, and controversial. If it were decided to treat subgroup preferences as valid determinants of public policy, a transparent analytical procedure is needed. In this proof of method study we show how public preferences could be incorporated into policy decisions in a way that respects both the multi-criterial nature of those decisions, and the heterogeneity of the population in relation to the importance assigned to relevant criteria. It involves combining Cluster Analysis (CA), to generate the subgroup sets of preferences, with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), to provide the policy framework into which the clustered preferences are entered. We employ three techniques of CA to demonstrate that not only do different techniques produce different clusters, but that choosing among techniques (as well as developing the MCDA structure) is an important task to be undertaken in implementing the approach outlined in any specific policy context. Data for the illustrative, not substantive, application are from a Randomized Controlled Trial of online decision aids for Australian men aged 40-69 years considering Prostate-specific Antigen testing for prostate cancer. We show that such analyses can provide policy-makers with insights into the criterion-specific needs of different subgroups. Implementing CA and MCDA in combination to assist in the development of policies on important health and community issues such as drug coverage, reimbursement, and screening programs, poses major challenges -conceptual, methodological, ethical-political, and practical - but most are exposed by the techniques, not created by them.

Bringing Feedback in From the Outback via a Generic and Preference-Sensitive Instrument for Course Quality Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Much effort and many resources have been put into developing ways of eliciting valid and informative student feedback on courses in medical, nursing, and other health professional schools. Whatever their motivation, items, and setting, the response rates have usually been disappointingly low, and there seems to be an acceptance that the results are potentially biased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to look at an innovative approach to course assessment by students in the health professions. This approach was designed to make it an integral part of their educational experience, rather than a marginal, terminal, and optional add-on as "feedback". It becomes a weighted, but ungraded, part of the course assignment requirements. METHODS: A ten-item, two-part Internet instrument, MyCourseQuality (MCQ-10D), was developed following a purposive review of previous instruments. Shorthand labels for the criteria are: Content, Organization, Perspective, Presentations, Materials, Relevance, Workload, Support, Interactivity, and Assessment. The assessment is unique in being dually personalized. In part 1, at the beginning of the course, the student enters their importance weights for the ten criteria. In part 2, at its completion, they rate the course on the same criteria. Their ratings and weightings are combined in a simple expected-value calculation to produce their dually personalized and decomposable MCQ score. Satisfactory (technical) completion of both parts contributes 10% of the marks available in the course. Providers are required to make the relevant characteristics of the course fully transparent at enrollment, and the course is to be rated as offered. A separate item appended to the survey allows students to suggest changes to what is offered. Students also complete (anonymously) the standard feedback form in the setting concerned. RESULTS: Piloting in a medical school and health professional school will establish the organizational feasibility and acceptability of the approach (a version of which has been employed in one medical school previously), as well as its impact on provider behavior and intentions, and on student engagement and responsiveness. The priorities for future improvements in terms of the specified criteria are identified at both individual and group level. The group results from MCQ will be compared with those from the standard feedback questionnaire, which will also be completed anonymously by the same students (or some percentage of them). CONCLUSIONS: We present a protocol for the piloting of a student-centered, dually personalized course quality instrument that forms part of the assignment requirements and is therefore an integral part of the course. If, and how, such an essentially formative Student-Reported Outcome or Experience Measure can be used summatively, at unit or program level, remains to be determined, and is not our concern here.

Caveat emptor NICE: biased use of cost-effectiveness is inefficient and inequitable.

Concern with the threshold applied in cost-effectiveness analyses by bodies such as NICE distracts attention from their biased use of the principle. The bias results from the prior requirement that an intervention be effective (usually 'clinically effective') before its cost-effectiveness is considered. The underlying justification for the use of cost-effectiveness as a criterion, whatever the threshold adopted, is that decisions in a resource-constrained system have opportunity costs. Their existence rules out any restriction to those interventions that are 'incrementally cost-effective' at a chosen threshold and requires acceptance of those that are 'decrementally cost-effective' at the same threshold. Interventions that fall under the linear ICER line in the South-West quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane are cost-effective because they create net health benefits, as do those in the North-East quadrant. If there is objection to the fact that they are cost-effective by reducing effectiveness as well as costs, it is possible to reject them, but only on policy grounds other than their failure to be cost-effective. Having established this, the paper considers and seeks to counter the arguments based on these other grounds. Most notably these include those proposing a different threshold in the South-West quadrant from the North-East one, i.e. propose a 'kinked ICER'. Another undesirable consequence of the biased use of cost-effectiveness is the failure to stimulate innovations that would increase overall health gain by being less effective in the condition concerned, but generate more benefits elsewhere. NICE can only reward innovations that cost more.

The development of a multi-criteria decision analysis aid to help with contraceptive choices: My Contraception Tool.

My Contraception Tool (MCT) applies the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis to the choice of contraceptive method. Its purpose is to make the decision-making process transparent to the user and to suggest a method to them based on their own preferences. The contraceptive option that emerges as optimal from the analysis takes account of the probability of a range of outcomes and the relative weight ascribed to them by the user. The development of MCT was a collaborative project between London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Brook, FPA and Maldaba Ltd. MCT is available online via the Brook and FPA websites. In this article we describe MCT's development and how it works. Further work is needed to assess the impact it has on decision quality and contraceptive behaviour.

Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Annalisa© (AL) is a web-based decision-support template grounded in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). It uses a simple expected value algorithm to calculate a score for each option by taking into account the individual's preferences for different criteria (as importance weights) and the evidence of the performance of each option on each criterion. Given the uncertainty surrounding the trade offs between benefits and harms for prostate cancer screening, this topic was chosen as the vehicle to introduce this new decision-support template. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to introduce a new decision-support template, AL, and to develop and pilot a decision-support tool for prostate cancer screening using it. METHODS: A decision-support tool for prostate cancer screening (ALProst) was implemented in the AL template. ALProst incorporated evidence on both the benefits and the potential harms of prostate cancer screening (the 'attributes') from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Individual weights for each attribute were elicited during interviews. By combining the individual's preferences and the evidence, the best option for the user was identified on the basis of quantified scores. A convenience sample of computer-proficient primary-care physicians (general practitioners [GPs] in Australia) from the Sydney Metropolitan area (Australia) were invited to complete a face-to-face interview involving the decision-support tool. Preference for undergoing prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, both personally and for their patients, was sought prior to seeing the tool. After gaining hands-on experience with using the tool, GPs were asked to comment on the merits of the template and the tool. Preference for presenting the benefits of prostate cancer screening as the relative or absolute risk reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality was also sought. RESULTS: Of 60 GPs approached, ten (six men and four women) completed an interview (16.7% response rate). Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed with positive statements about the ease with which they could use AL (seven GPs), and understand the information in, and format of, AL (nine and eight, respectively). Eight agreed/strongly agreed that ALProst would be a useful tool for discussing prostate cancer screening with their patients. GPs were also asked to nominate difficult clinical decisions that they, and their patients, have had to make; responses included cancer screening (including prostate cancer); treating patients with multiple illnesses/diseases; managing multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors; and managing patients who are receiving multiple medications. The common element was the need to consider multiple factors in making these complex decisions. CONCLUSIONS: AL is distinguishable from most other decision-support templates available today by its underlying conceptual framework, MCDA, and its power to combine individual preferences with evidence to derive the best option for the user quantitatively. It therefore becomes potentially useful for all decisions at all levels in the healthcare system. Moreover, it will provide a universal graphic 'language' that can overcome the burden to patients of encountering a plethora of widely varying decision aids for different conditions during their lifetime.

Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant.

In many health decision making situations there is a requirement that the effectiveness of interventions, usually their 'clinical' effectiveness, be established, as well as their cost-effectiveness. Often indeed this is effectively a prior requirement for their cost-effectiveness being investigated. If, however, one accepts the ethical argument for using a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for interventions that are more effective but more costly (i.e. fall in the NE quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane), one should apply the same decision rule in the SW quadrant, where the intervention is less effective but less costly. This implication is present in most standard treatments of cost-effectiveness analysis, including recent stochastic versions, and had gone relatively unquestioned within the discipline until the recent suggestion that the ICER threshold might be 'kinked'. A kinked threshold would, O'Brien et al. argue, better reflect the asymmetrical individual preferences found in empirical studies of consumer's willingness to pay and willingness to accept and justify different decision rules in the NE and SW quadrants. We reject the validity of such asymmetric preferences in the context of public health care decisions and consider and counter the two main 'ethical' objections that probably underlie the asymmetry in this case--the objection to 'taking away' and the objection to being required to undergo treatment that is less effective than no treatment at all.

Women's views of two interventions designed to assist in the prophylactic oophorectomy decision: a qualitative pilot evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: A qualitative pilot evaluation of two different decision interventions for the prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) decision: a Decision Chart and a computerized clinical guidance programme (CGP) was undertaken. The Decision Chart, representing current practice in decision interventions, presents population-based information. The CGP elicits individual values to allow for quality-adjusted life years to be calculated and an explicit guidance statement is given. Prophylactic oophorectomy involves removal of the ovaries as an adjunct to hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer. The decision is complex because the operation can affect a number of long-term outcomes including breast cancer, coronary heart disease and osteoporosis. METHODS: Both interventions were based on the evidence and were administered by a facilitator. The Decision Chart is a file, which progressively reveals information in the form of bar charts. The CGP is a decision-analysis based program integrating the results from a cluster of Markov cycle trees. The research evidence is incorporated with woman's individual risk factors, values and preferences. A purposive sample of 19 women awaiting hysterectomy used the decision interventions (10 CGP, nine Decision Chart). In-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken. Interviews were transcribed and analysed to derive themes. RESULTS: Reactions to the different decision interventions were mixed. Both were seen as clarifying the decision. Some women found some of the tasks difficult (e.g. rating health status). Some were surprised by the "individualized" guidance, which the CGP offered. The Decision Chart provided some with a sense of empowerment, although some found that it provided too much information. CONCLUSIONS: Women were able to use both decision interventions. Both provided decision clarification. Problems were evident with both interventions, which give useful pointers for future development. These included the possibility for women to see how their individual risks of different outcomes are affected in the Decision Chart and enhanced explanation of the CGP tasks. Future design and evaluation of decision aids, will need to accommodate differences between patients in the desire for amount and type of information and level of involvement in the decision-making process.

Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions.

When a HRQOL measure is needed in health care decision making should it be a generic measure (a GEN), intended to cover the entire domain of health, a condition-specific measure (a CSM) intended to embrace those aspects of health associated with the condition concerned, or both? This paper proposes that it will never be appropriate to use both a CSM and a GEN for the same decision; that a GEN alone will probably be the appropriate measure in the majority of decisions; that a CSM alone will sometimes be appropriate; and that whether it is a GEN alone or a CSM alone that is appropriate depends entirely on the structure of the decision. The argument rests on the distinction between knowledge validity and decision validity. But it has a supplementary basis in rejection of the widespread (but unjustifiable) belief that CSMs are more "sensitive" or "responsive" than GENs and hence can detect "small but important changes" that GENs always or often miss.