From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Mireille M Goetghebeur²  Paul Kind⁴  Janine van Til¹  Donna Rindress⁵  Rob Baltussen³  Monika Wagner⁵  Lalla Aïda Guindo⁵ 

[1] University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;Department of Health Administration, Faculty of medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada;Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;York University, Toronto, ON, Canada;BioMedCom Consultants, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

关键词: Healthcare;    Criteria;    Priority-setting;    Resource allocation;    Decisionmaking;   

Others  :  810872
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-7547-10-9

 received in 2012-01-20, accepted in 2012-06-28,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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-setting.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Guindo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hsu M, Anen C, Quartz SR: The right and the good: distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science 2008, 320:1092-1095.
• [2]World Health Organization: Guidance on ethics and equitable access to HIV treatment and care. http://www.who.int/ethics/Guidance%20on%20Ethics%20and%20HIV.pdf webcite
• [3]Daniels N: Justice, health, and healthcare. Am J Bioeth 2001, 1:2-16.
• [4]Gruskin S, Daniels N: Process is the point: justice and human rights: priority setting and fair deliberative process. Am J Public Health 2008, 98:1573-1577.
• [5]Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet 2009, 373:423-431.
• [6]Daniels N, Sabin J: Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997, 26:303-350.
• [7]Daniels N: Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health 1999, 76:176-191.
• [8]Asante AD, Zwi AB: Factors influencing resource allocation decisions and equity in the health system of Ghana. Public Health 2009, 123:371-377.
• [9]Andreae MC, Lamarand KE, Abraham L, Freed GL: Basis for immunization recommendations among countries of the worldHealth Organization European region. Hum Vaccin 2009, 5:754-760.
• [10]Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C: Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2010, 8:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Baltussen R, Niessen L: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Baltussen R, ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW: Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan 2007, 22:178-185.
• [13]Youngkong S, Kapiriri L, Baltussen R: Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop Med Int Health 2009, 14:930-939.
• [14]Lasry A, Carter MW, Zaric GS: Allocating funds for HIV/AIDS: a descriptive study of KwaDukuza, South Africa. Health Policy Plan 2010, 26:33-42.
• [15]Bowen S, Zwi AB: Pathways to "evidence-informed" policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med 2005, 2:e166.
• [16]Browman GP, Manns B, Hagen N, Chambers CR, Simon A, Sinclair S: 6-STEPPPs: A modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs. Journal of Oncology Practice 2008, 4:2-7.
• [17]Ghaffar A: Setting research priorities by applying the combined approach matrix. Indian J Med Res 2009, 129:368-375.
• [18]Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D: Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking - the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:270. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Golan OG, Hansen P: A new decision-support framework for prioritization of new health technologies. The 'value for money' chart, University of Otago; 2010.
• [20]Hailey D: A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:415-418.
• [21]Honore PA, Fos PJ, Smith T, Riley M, Kramarz K: Decision science: a scientific approach to enhance public health budgeting. J Public Health Manag Pract 2010, 16:98-103.
• [22]Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, et al.: Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:141-150.
• [23]Kirby J, Somers E, Simpson C, McPhee J: The public funding of expensive cancer therapies: synthesizing the "3Es"–evidence, economics, and ethics. Organ Ethic 2008, 4:97-108.
• [24]Meagher T: MUHC clinical activity priority setting A4R and beyond. Presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Society on Priorities in Health Care, Boston; 2010.
• [25]Menon D, Stafinski T, McCabe C: To fund or not to fund: A generalized decision-making model for health care resource allocation. Presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Society on Priorities in Health Care, Boston; 2010.
• [26]Tannahill A: Beyond evidence–to ethics: a decision-making framework for health promotion, public health and health improvement. Health Promot Int 2008, 23:380-390.
• [27]The University of York: Providing reliable evidence to support decision-making. The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED); http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/EM/em61.pdf webcite
• [28]Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ: Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]EVIDEM Collaboration: EVIDEM Collaboration. http://www.evidem.org webcite
• [30]Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M: Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ 2006, 15:689-696.
• [31]Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, Donaldson C: Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009, 14:234-242.
• [32]Dolan JG: Multi-criteria clinical decision support. A primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient 2010, 3:229-248.
• [33]Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L: Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II. Is health economics 'for good or evil'? Health Policy 1999, 46:143-157.
• [34]Gibson J, Mitton C, Martin D, Donaldson C, Singer P: Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting? J Health Serv Res Policy 2006, 11:32-37.
• [35]Hofmann B: Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21:312-318.
• [36]Irving MJ, Tong A, Rychetnik L, Walker RG, Frommer MS, Craig JC: Nephrologists' perspectives on the effect of guidelines on clinical practice: a semistructured interview study. Am J Kidney Dis 2010, 55:241-249.
• [37]Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, D'Almeida SA, Bosu WK, et al.: Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health 2008, 11:1081-1087.
• [38]Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK: Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making? Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:766-773.
• [39]Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X: Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010, 26:198-204.
• [40]Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B: Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:9-16.
• [41]Lopert R: Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2009, 60:1-13.
• [42]Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA: Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001, 358:1676-1681.
• [43]Mitton C, Mackenzie J, Cranston L, Teng F: Priority setting in the Provincial Health Services Authority: case study for the 2005/06 planning cycle. Healthc Policy 2006, 2:91-106.
• [44]Mullen PM: Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion? Health Serv Manage Res 2004, 17:47-58.
• [45]Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B: Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:310-315.
• [46]Saarni SI, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Luhmann D, Makela M, Velasco-Garrido M, et al.: Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 2008, 86:617-623.
• [47]Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E: Decision-making in priority setting for medicines–a review of empirical studies. Health Policy 2008, 86:1-9.
• [48]Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R: Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007, 12:80-85.
• [49]Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N: Reimbursement decisions in health policy–extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy 2005, 73:330-338.
• [50]Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA: Evidence, economics and ethics: resource allocation in health services organizations. Healthc Q 2005, 8:50-9. 4
• [51]Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens PJ, Crockett S: More Than "Using Research": The Real Challenges in Promoting Evidence-Informed Decision-Making. Healthc Policy 2009, 4:87-102.
• [52]Wilson KA, Carwardine J, Possingham HP: Setting conservation priorities. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009, 1162:237-264.
• [53]Walton NA, Martin DK, Peter EH, Pringle DM, Singer PA: Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study. Health Policy 2007, 80:444-458.
• [54]Schlander M: The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:534-539.
• [55]van Velden ME, Severens JL, Novak A: Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: the influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels. PharmacoEconomics 2005, 23:1075-1082.
• [56]Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S: The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008., 12iii, ix-iii,175
• [57]World Health Organization Regional Committee for South-East Asia: Equity in access to public health. Working paper from the 53rd session of the WHO Regional Committee for South-East Asia, New Delhi, India; 2000. 4–7 September 2000
• [58]Braveman P, Gruskin S: Defining equity in health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:254-258.
• [59]Giacomini M: How good is good enough? Standards in policy decisions to cover new health technologies. Healthc Policy 2007, 3:91-101.
• [60]Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M: QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl 1):S10-S15.
• [61]Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D: Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making 2011.
• [62]Culyer AJ, Bombard Y: An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making 2012, 32:428-441.
• [63]Burls A, Caron L, de Cleret LG, Dondorp W, Harstall C, Pathak-Sen E, et al.: Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011, 27:230-237.
• [64]Hawkes N: Health Technology Assessment. NICE goes global. BMJ 2009, 338:b103.
• [65]Biomedcom Consultants Inc: Interface database on coverage decisionmaking processes in jurisdictions around the globe. 2011. http://www.biomedcom.org/en/bmc-databases.php webcite
• [66]Diaby V, Laurier C, Lachaine J: A proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries. Pharm Med 2011, 25:71-82.
• [67]Eichler HG, Pignatti F, Flamion B, Leufkens H, Breckenridge A: Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008, 7:818-826.
• [68]Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al.: EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010, 88:256-276.
• [69]Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, Rochaix L, Sawicki PT, Nasser M, et al.: Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009, 87:339-367.
• [70]Erickson LJ, De WP, Farand L: An analytical framework for immunization programs in Canada. Vaccine 2005, 23:2470-2476.
• [71]Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, Karakiewicz P, Martin D, Tugwell P, et al.: Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases–a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009, 16:e273-e281.
• [72]Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S: Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. http://www.chsrf.ca/kte_docs/Conceptualizing%20and%20combining%20evidence.pdf webcite
• [73]Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L: Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy 2010, 96:262-264.
• [74]Volpp KG, Loewenstein G, Asch DA: Assessing value in health care programs. JAMA 2012, 307:2153-2154.
• [75]Culyer AJ: Hic sunt dracones: the future of health technology assessment–one economist's perspective. Med Decis Making 2012, 32:E25-E32.