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-settin

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making.</p

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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 decisionmaking.</p

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

Evaluation of tuberculosis diagnostic test accuracy using Bayesian latent class analysis in the presence of conditional dependence between the diagnostic tests used in a community-based tuberculosis screening study

Diagnostic accuracy studies in pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) are complicated by the lack of a perfect reference standard. This limitation can be handled using latent class analysis (LCA), assuming independence between diagnostic test results conditional on the true unobserved PTB status. Test results could remain dependent, however, e.g. with diagnostic tests based on a similar biological basis. If ignored, this gives misleading inferences. Our secondary analysis of data collected during the first year (May 2018 -May 2019) of a community-based multi-morbidity screening program conducted in the rural uMkhanyakude district of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, used Bayesian LCA. Residents of the catchment area, aged >/=15 years and eligible for microbiological testing, were analyzed. Probit regression methods for dependent binary data sequentially regressed each binary test outcome on other observed test results, measured covariates and the true unobserved PTB status. Unknown model parameters were assigned Gaussian priors to evaluate overall PTB prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of 6 tests used to screen for PTB: any TB symptom, radiologist conclusion, Computer Aided Detection for TB version 5 (CAD4TBv5>/=53), CAD4TBv6>/=53, Xpert Ultra (excluding trace) and culture. Before the application of our proposed model, we evaluated its performance using a previously published childhood pulmonary TB (CPTB) dataset. Standard LCA assuming conditional independence yielded an unrealistic prevalence estimate of 18.6% which was not resolved by accounting for conditional dependence among the true PTB cases only. Allowing, also, for conditional dependence among the true non-PTB cases produced a 1.1% plausible prevalence. After incorporating age, sex, and HIV status in the analysis, we obtained 0.9% (95% CrI: 0.6, 1.3) overall prevalence. Males had higher PTB prevalence compared to females (1.2% vs. 0.8%). Similarly, HIV+ had a higher PTB prevalence compared to HIV- (1.3% vs. 0.8%). The overall sensitivity for Xpert Ultra (excluding trace) and culture were 62.2% (95% CrI: 48.7, 74.4) and 75.9% (95% CrI: 61.9, 89.2), respectively. Any chest X-ray abnormality, CAD4TBv5>/=53 and CAD4TBv6>/=53 had similar overall sensitivity. Up to 73.3% (95% CrI: 61.4, 83.4) of all true PTB cases did not report TB symptoms. Our flexible modelling approach yields plausible, easy-to-interpret estimates of sensitivity, specificity and PTB prevalence under more realistic assumptions. Failure to fully account for diagnostic test dependence can yield misleading inferences

Impact of allelic dropout on evidential value of forensic DNA profiles using RMNE

Motivation: Two methods are commonly used to report on evidence carried by forensic DNA profiles: the ‘Random Man Not Excluded’ (RMNE) approach and the likelihood ratio (LR) approach. It is often claimed a major advantage of the LR method that dropout can be assessed probabilistically

On Testing Dependence between Time to Failure and Cause of Failure when Causes of Failure Are Missing

The hypothesis of independence between the failure time and the cause of failure is studied by using the conditional probabilities of failure due to a specific cause given that there is no failure up to certain fixed time. In practice, there are situations when the failure times are available for all units but the causes of failures might be missing for some units. We propose tests based on U-statistics to test for independence of the failure time and the cause of failure in the competing risks model when all the causes of failure cannot be observed. The asymptotic distribution is normal in each case. Simulation studies look at power comparisons for the proposed tests for two families of distributions. The one-sided and the two-sided tests based on Kendall type statistic perform exceedingly well in detecting departures from independence

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

&lt;p&gt;Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.&lt;/p&gt

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Consistent healthcare decisionmaking 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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p