scholarly journals Announcing the Canadian Journal of Health Technologies — A New Journal From CADTH

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Mittmann
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Canadian Journal ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Care Decision

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on science and reaffirmed the value of evidence in health care decision-making. CADTH is a major Canadian publisher of evidence, advice, and recommendations regarding the assessment and management of health technologies. The Canadian Journal of Health Technologies will publish CADTH work in a single, PubMed-indexed, online location, making it easier for our health system partners to search and find CADTH work. Through the Canadian Journal of Health Technologies, CADTH will expand its reach and its collaborations with producers and users of health technology assessments.

Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireille M. Goetghebeur ◽  
Monika Wagner ◽  
Hanane Khoury ◽  
Randy J. Levitt ◽  
Lonny J. Erickson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Multicriteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Multicriteria Decision ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Care Decision

scholarly journals Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (37) ◽  
pp. 1-124
Author(s):  
Laura Bojke ◽  
Marta Soares ◽  
Karl Claxton ◽  
Abigail Colson ◽  
Aimée Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Expert Elicitation ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Care Decision

Background Many decisions in health care aim to maximise health, requiring judgements about interventions that may have higher health effects but potentially incur additional costs (cost-effectiveness framework). The evidence used to establish cost-effectiveness is typically uncertain and it is important that this uncertainty is characterised. In situations in which evidence is uncertain, the experience of experts is essential. The process by which the beliefs of experts can be formally collected in a quantitative manner is structured expert elicitation. There is heterogeneity in the existing methodology used in health-care decision-making. A number of guidelines are available for structured expert elicitation; however, it is not clear if any of these are appropriate for health-care decision-making. Objectives The overall aim was to establish a protocol for structured expert elicitation to inform health-care decision-making. The objectives are to (1) provide clarity on methods for collecting and using experts’ judgements, (2) consider when alternative methodology may be required in particular contexts, (3) establish preferred approaches for elicitation on a range of parameters, (4) determine which elicitation methods allow experts to express uncertainty and (5) determine the usefulness of the reference protocol developed. Methods A mixed-methods approach was used: systemic review, targeted searches, experimental work and narrative synthesis. A review of the existing guidelines for structured expert elicitation was conducted. This identified the approaches used in existing guidelines (the ‘choices’) and determined if dominant approaches exist. Targeted review searches were conducted for selection of experts, level of elicitation, fitting and aggregation, assessing accuracy of judgements and heuristics and biases. To sift through the available choices, a set of principles that underpin the use of structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making was defined using evidence generated from the targeted searches, quantities to elicit experimental evidence and consideration of constraints in health-care decision-making. These principles, including fitness for purpose and reflecting individual expert uncertainty, were applied to the set of choices to establish a reference protocol. An applied evaluation of the developed reference protocol was also undertaken. Results For many elements of structured expert elicitation, there was a lack of consistency across the existing guidelines. In almost all choices, there was a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations, and in some circumstances the principles are unable to provide sufficient justification for discounting particular choices. It is possible to define reference methods for health technology assessment. These include a focus on gathering experts with substantive skills, eliciting observable quantities and individual elicitation of beliefs. Additional considerations are required for decision-makers outside health technology assessment, for example at a local level, or for early technologies. Access to experts may be limited and in some circumstances group discussion may be needed to generate a distribution. Limitations The major limitation of the work conducted here lies not in the methods employed in the current work but in the evidence available from the wider literature relating to how appropriate particular methodological choices are. Conclusions The reference protocol is flexible in many choices. This may be a useful characteristic, as it is possible to apply this reference protocol across different settings. Further applied studies, which use the choices specified in this reference protocol, are required. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This work was also funded by the Medical Research Council (reference MR/N028511/1).

The Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methods in Health Care: A Literature Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110190
Author(s):  
Ilyas Khan ◽  
Liliane Pintelon ◽  
Harry Martin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Hybrid Methods ◽  
Multicriteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Multicriteria Decision ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Care Decision

Objectives The main objectives of this article are 2-fold. First, we explore the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods in different areas of health care, particularly the adoption of various MCDA methods across health care decision making problems. Second, we report on the publication trends on the application of MCDA methods in health care. Method PubMed was searched for literature from 1960 to 2019 in the English language. A wide range of keywords was used to retrieve relevant studies. The literature search was performed in September 2019. Articles were included only if they have reported an MCDA case in health care. Results and Conclusion The search yielded 8,318 abstracts, of which 158 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for further analysis. Hybrid methods are the most widely used methods in health care decision making problems. When it comes to single methods, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is the most widely used method followed by TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution), multiattribute utility theory, goal programming, EVIDEM (evidence and value: impact on decision making), evidential reasoning, discrete choice experiment, and so on. Interestingly, the usage of hybrid methods has been high in recent years. AHP is most widely applied in screening and diagnosing and followed by treatment, medical devices, resource allocation, and so on. Furthermore, treatment, screening and diagnosing, medical devices, and drug development and assessment got more attention in the MCDA context. It is indicated that the application of MCDA methods to health care decision making problem is determined by the nature and complexity of the health care problem. However, guidelines and tools exist that assist in the selection of an MCDA method.

scholarly journals Communication and cognitive impairments and health care decision making in MND: A narrative review

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1182-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Paynter ◽  
Madeline Cruice ◽  
Susan Mathers ◽  
Heidi Gregory ◽  
Adam P. Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Impairments ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Care Decision

scholarly journals Parent-child collaboration in health care decision making: perspectives of young people with chronic illness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elana Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Illness ◽  
Young People ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Chronic Illnesses ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
Role Of Parents ◽  
Care Decision

This study explores the perspectives of young people with chronic illness on their participation in health care discussions and decision making, with a specific focus on the role of parents in facilitating participation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 participants between the ages of 5 and 18. Participants were recruited from inpatient units at a pediatric hospital. A range of chronic illnesses were represented among members of the sample, including kidney failure, Crohn’s disease, organ transplant, and sickle cell anemia. Following data collection, a focused analysis was conducted of participants’ statements related to parent involvement in the health care decision making process. Salient themes that emerged from analysis of the data reveal a complex and bidirectional process in which young people and parents negotiate children’s participation in making decisions related to their health care. Based on the findings, a collaborative-contextual model of decision making is proposed.

scholarly journals Assessing the Impact of Censoring of Costs and Effects on Health-Care Decision-Making: an Example Using the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Fenwick ◽  
Deborah A. Marshall ◽  
Gordon Blackhouse ◽  
Humberto Vidaillet ◽  
April Slee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Care Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document