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
. 2020 Oct 26;17(21):7823.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217823.

Multi-Criteria-Decision-Analysis (MCDA) for the Horizon Scanning of Health Innovations an Application to COVID 19 Emergency

Matteo Ruggeri  1   2 , Chiara Cadeddu  3 , Paolo Roazzi  1 , Donatella Mandolini  1 , Mauro Grigioni  4 , Marco Marchetti  1
Affiliations

Multi-Criteria-Decision-Analysis (MCDA) for the Horizon Scanning of Health Innovations an Application to COVID 19 Emergency

Matteo Ruggeri et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Aim: In this article, we aim to present a tool for the early assessment of medical technologies. This evaluation system was designed and implemented by the National Centre for HTA and the National Centre for Innovative Technologies of the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Italy, in order to respond to an institutional commitment within the "Health Technologies Assessment Team" that was established to face the huge demand for the evaluation of Health Technologies during the pandemic event caused by COVID-19, with a smart and easy-to-use framework. Methods: Horizon scanning was conducted through a brief assessment carried out according to the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. Each HTA domain was attributed a score according to a pros/cons and opportunities/threats system, derived from evidence in the literature. Scores were weighted according to different perspectives. Scores were presented in a Cartesian graph showing the positioning according to the potential value and the perceived risk associated with the technology. Results: Two case studies regarding the early assessment were reported, concerning two specific technologies: an individual protection device and a contact tracking system.

Keywords: Health Technology Assessment; horizon scanning; multi-criteria decision analysis; priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Individual protection device; perceived risk/potential value graph.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Contact tracking app; potential risk/perceived value graph.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: The relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J. Health Econ. 2005;24:703–714. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ham C. Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy. 1997;42:49–66. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(97)00054-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goddard M., Hauck K., Preker A., Smith P.C. Priority setting in health–a political economy perspective. Health Econ. Policy Law. 2005;1:79–90. doi: 10.1017/S1744133105001040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ollila E. Global health priorities–priorities of the wealthy? Glob. Health. 2005;1:6. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-1-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bennett S., Chanfreau C. Approaches to rationing antiretroviral treatment: Ethical and equity implications. Bull. World Health Organ. 2005;83:541–547. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources