Anika Kaczynski

Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: The Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA

Healthcare decision making is usually characterized by a low degree of transparency. The demand for transparent decision processes can be fulfilled only when assessment, appraisal and decisions about health technologies are performed under a systematic construct of benefit assessment. The benefit of an intervention is often multidimensional and, thus, must be represented by several decision criteria. Complex decision problems require an assessment and appraisal of various criteria; therefore, a decision process that systematically identifies the best available alternative and enables an optimal and transparent decision is needed. For that reason, decision criteria must be weighted and goal achievement must be scored for all alternatives. Methods of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are available to analyse and appraise multiple clinical endpoints and structure complex decision problems in healthcare decision making. By means of MCDA, value judgments, priorities and preferences of patients, insurees and experts can be integrated systematically and transparently into the decision-making process. This article describes the MCDA framework and identifies potential areas where MCDA can be of use (e.g. approval, guidelines and reimbursement/pricing of health technologies). A literature search was performed to identify current research in healthcare. The results showed that healthcare decision making is addressing the problem of multiple decision criteria and is focusing on the future development and use of techniques to weight and score different decision criteria. This article emphasizes the use and future benefit of MCDA.

Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview

Best-worst scaling (BWS), also known as maximum-difference scaling, is a multiattribute approach to measuring preferences. BWS aims at the analysis of preferences regarding a set of attributes, their levels or alternatives. It is a stated-preference method based on the assumption that respondents are capable of making judgments regarding the best and the worst (or the most and least important, respectively) out of three or more elements of a choice-set. As is true of discrete choice experiments (DCE) generally, BWS avoids the known weaknesses of rating and ranking scales while holding the promise of generating additional information by making respondents choose twice, namely the best as well as the worst criteria. A systematic literature review found 53 BWS applications in health and healthcare. This article expounds possibilities of application, the underlying theoretical concepts and the implementation of BWS in its three variants: ‘object case’, ‘profile case’, ‘multiprofile case’. This paper contains a survey of BWS methods and revolves around study design, experimental design, and data analysis. Moreover the article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of BWS distinguished and offered an outlook. A companion paper focuses on special issues of theory and statistical inference confronting BWS in preference measurement.

Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues.

For optimal solutions in health care, decision makers inevitably must evaluate trade-offs, which call for multi-attribute valuation methods. Researchers have proposed using best-worst scaling (BWS) methods which seek to extract information from respondents by asking them to identify the best and worst items in each choice set. While a companion paper describes the different types of BWS, application and their advantages and downsides, this contribution expounds their relationships with microeconomic theory, which also have implications for statistical inference. This article devotes to the microeconomic foundations of preference measurement, also addressing issues such as scale invariance and scale heterogeneity. Furthermore the paper discusses the basics of preference measurement using rating, ranking and stated choice data in the light of the findings of the preceding section. Moreover the paper gives an introduction to the use of stated choice data and juxtaposes BWS with the microeconomic foundations.

Patientenpräferenzen in der medikamentösen Therapie von Diabetes Mellitus Typ 2

OBJECTIVE Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most expensive common diseases. Because of the great socio-economic importance of this indication, it seems necessary to consider the expectations and needs of all patients with regard to treatment characteristics. To evaluate patient preferences stated-preference methods are increasingly used. The aim was to analyze and compare the available evidence from patient preference studies regarding the treatment characteristics and to display which target criteria in the medicinal treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 are most important from the patients view. METHODS A literature review in PubMed was conducted to identify stated preference studies in the indication of diabetes and show which properties of a treatment are relevant to the patients benefit. By means of level difference calculation and a subsequent normalization uniform weights for the attributes of the studies were determined. Based on a final ranking the key criteria according to their value proposition from the perspective of affected populations are demonstrated. RESULTS N = 13 studies could be included in the analysis. By calculating the level difference and performing a normalization it was possible to obtain a uniform representation of all attributes of N = 7 studies. The preference studies show that the control of blood sugar, side effects (such as hypoglycemia, nausea and stomach discomfort or weight changes), long-term complications and the mode of administration represent the most common patient-relevant outcomes in diabetes therapy. In five of the 13 DCE studies the blood glucose control achieved the highest ranking within the relative importance score in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. In two studies, the side effects hypoglycemia and weight changes occupied the first rank. Furthermore, in two other studies, the side effects of nausea/upset stomach and in one study the type of application determined as the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS The use of stated preference methods in health economics aims to reflect the benefit assessments of therapy features from patients or expert perspective. So far it is unclear how this evidence is documented in benefit assessment of medical interventions and how the findings will be made available to decision-makers. Based on the findings of this review the evidence of patient preferences in diabetes treatment is synthesized. The results show the relative importance based on a derived ranking score of the used patient-relevant endpoints. The ranking allows the comparison of the results of the identified preference studies.

Choice Blindness and Health-State Choices among Adolescents and Adults

Objective. To assess the feasibility and validity of using a discrete choice experiment format to elicit health preferences in adolescents by comparing illogical choices and choice-blindness rates between adults and adolescents; and to explore the relationship between personality traits and health-state choices. Methods. A convenience sample of adults and adolescents (12 to 17 y old) were recruited from around Chicago, USA. A personality inventory was administered, followed by pairwise comparisons of 6 health-state scenarios which asked each candidate to select their preferred choice. Health-state descriptions were based on a simplified 3-dimension version of the EQ-5D (mobility, pain, depression, each with 3 levels). For 2 scenarios, the respondent’s preferred choice was switched; if the respondent did not notice the switch they were considered “choice blind”. Logistic regression evaluated the association of personality, gender, and age with choice blindness and health-state choice. Results. Ninety-nine respondents were recruited (44% adults). Comparing adolescents to adults, there was no significant difference in the rate of illogical preferences (9% v. 12%) or in preferring dead to the worst health state (56% v. 64%) (P > 0.05). Choice-blindness rates were significantly higher in adolescents (35%) than adults (9%) (P < 0.01). The adjusted odds of choice blindness in adolescents was 6.6 (95% CI = 1.8 to 23.8; P = 0.004). Conscientiousness was significantly associated with health-state choice in 3 of the 6 models predicting health-state choice (using P < 0.1 as a threshold). Conclusions. The results of this exploratory study suggest it is feasible to conduct choice experiments in adolescents; however, adolescents are significantly more likely to demonstrate choice blindness. Psychological traits may be noteworthy predictors of health-state choices, with conscientiousness independently associated with several health-state choices.

Der Ausschuss „Ökonomische Evaluation und Entscheidungsfindung“ – Bericht zum dggö-Ausschuss „Ökonomische Evaluation und Entscheidungsfindung“

Die Nutzenbewertung ist mittlerweile eine etablierte Grundlage fur die Entscheidungsfindung im Gesundheitswesen. Eine neue Herausforderung ist jedoch die Anforderung, eine Vielzahl an Kriterien in Entscheidungen einfliesen zu lassen. In der Sitzung des dggo-Ausschusses im Dezember 2016 in Berlin wurde daher uber Methoden und Instrumente der multikriteriellen Entscheidungsfindung diskutiert.

Patientenpräferenzen in der medikamentösen Therapie von Diabetes Mellitus Typ 2@@@Patients’ preferences in the medicamentous treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2: Systematische Klassifizierung und Metavergleich der Patientenpräferenzstudien@@@A systematic classification and meta-comparison of patient preference studies

OBJECTIVE Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most expensive common diseases. Because of the great socio-economic importance of this indication, it seems necessary to consider the expectations and needs of all patients with regard to treatment characteristics. To evaluate patient preferences stated-preference methods are increasingly used. The aim was to analyze and compare the available evidence from patient preference studies regarding the treatment characteristics and to display which target criteria in the medicinal treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 are most important from the patients view. METHODS A literature review in PubMed was conducted to identify stated preference studies in the indication of diabetes and show which properties of a treatment are relevant to the patients benefit. By means of level difference calculation and a subsequent normalization uniform weights for the attributes of the studies were determined. Based on a final ranking the key criteria according to their value proposition from the perspective of affected populations are demonstrated. RESULTS N = 13 studies could be included in the analysis. By calculating the level difference and performing a normalization it was possible to obtain a uniform representation of all attributes of N = 7 studies. The preference studies show that the control of blood sugar, side effects (such as hypoglycemia, nausea and stomach discomfort or weight changes), long-term complications and the mode of administration represent the most common patient-relevant outcomes in diabetes therapy. In five of the 13 DCE studies the blood glucose control achieved the highest ranking within the relative importance score in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. In two studies, the side effects hypoglycemia and weight changes occupied the first rank. Furthermore, in two other studies, the side effects of nausea/upset stomach and in one study the type of application determined as the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS The use of stated preference methods in health economics aims to reflect the benefit assessments of therapy features from patients or expert perspective. So far it is unclear how this evidence is documented in benefit assessment of medical interventions and how the findings will be made available to decision-makers. Based on the findings of this review the evidence of patient preferences in diabetes treatment is synthesized. The results show the relative importance based on a derived ranking score of the used patient-relevant endpoints. The ranking allows the comparison of the results of the identified preference studies.