Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 12;5(1):1360545.
doi: 10.1080/20016689.2017.1360545. eCollection 2017.

Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making FIFARMA, 2016

Julia I Drake  1 , Juan Carlos Trujillo de Hart  2 , Clara Monleón  3 , Walter Toro  2   4 , Joice Valentim  5
Affiliations

Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making FIFARMA, 2016

Julia I Drake et al. J Mark Access Health Policy. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: MCDA is a decision-making tool with increasing use in the healthcare sector, including HTA (Health Technology Assessment). By applying multiple criteria, including innovation, in a comprehensive, structured and explicit manner, MCDA fosters a transparent, participative, consistent decision-making process taking into consideration values of all stakeholders. This paper by FIFARMA (Latin American Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry) proposes the deliberative (partial) MCDA as a more pragmatic, agile approach, especially when newly implemented. Methods: Literature review including real-world examples of effective MCDA implementation in healthcare decision making in both the public and private sector worldwide and in LA. Results and conclusion: It is the view of FIFARMA that MCDA should strongly be considered as a tool to support HTA and broader healthcare decision making such as the contracts and tenders process in order to foster transparency, fairness, and collaboration amongst stakeholders.

Keywords: HTA; MCDA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

    1. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, et al. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32:345–10. - PubMed
    1. McKenna C, Soares M, Claxton K, et al. Unifying research and reimbursement decisions: case studies demonstrating the sequence of assessment and judgments required. Value Health. 2015;18:865–875. - PubMed
    1. Aitken M. Impact of cost-per QALY reimbursement criteria on access to cancer drugs (pp. 1–33). IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics; 2014..
    1. Devlin N, Ijzerman M, Marsh K, et al. MCDA for healthcare decision making – an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13. - PubMed
    1. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012. December;15(8):1172–1181. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources