Estimating the value of medical treatments to patients using probabilistic multi criteria decision analysis

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Research Article

Jeroen P. Jansen¹  Maarten J. IJzerman²  Henk Broekhuizen²  Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn²  A. Brett Hauber³ 

[1] Department Public Health and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, TUFTS University, Boston, MA, USA;Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;

关键词: Multi criteria decision analysis;    Patient preferences;    Monte Carlo simulations;    Probabilistic models;    Depression;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12911-015-0225-8

 received in 2015-08-11, accepted in 2015-11-27,  发布年份 2015

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundEstimating the value of medical treatments to patients is an essential part of healthcare decision making, but is mostly done implicitly and without consulting patients. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been proposed for the valuation task, while stated preference studies are increasingly used to measure patient preferences. In this study we propose a methodology for using stated preferences to weigh clinical evidence in an MCDA model that includes uncertainty in both patient preferences and clinical evidence explicitly.MethodsA probabilistic MCDA model with an additive value function was developed and illustrated using a case on hypothetical treatments for depression. The patient-weighted values were approximated with Monte Carlo simulations and compared to expert-weighted results. Decision uncertainty was calculated as the probability of rank reversal for the first rank. Furthermore, scenario analyses were done to assess the relative impact of uncertainty in preferences and clinical evidence, and of assuming uniform preference distributions.ResultsThe patient-weighted values for drug A, drug B, drug C, and placebo were 0.51 (95 % CI: 0.48 to 0.54), 0.51 (95 % CI: 0.48 to 0.54), 0.54 (0.49 to 0.58), and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.13 to 0.17), respectively. Drug C was the most preferred treatment and the rank reversal probability for first rank was 27 %. This probability decreased to 18 % when uncertainty in performances was not included and increased to 41 % when uncertainty in criterion weights was not included. With uniform preference distributions, the first rank reversal probability increased to 61 %. The expert-weighted values for drug A, drug B, drug C, and placebo were 0.67 (95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.68), 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.56 to 0.59), 0.67 (95 % CI: 0.61 to 0.71), and 0.19 (95 % CI: 0.17 to 0.21). The rank reversal probability for the first rank according to experts was 49 %.ConclusionsPreferences elicited from patients can be used to weigh clinical evidence in a probabilistic MCDA model. The resulting treatment values can be contrasted to results from experts, and the impact of uncertainty can be quantified using rank probabilities. Future research should focus on integrating the model with regulatory decision frameworks and on including other types of uncertainty.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Broekhuizen et al. 2015

【 图 表 】

12864_2017_3733_Article_IEq66.gif

12864_2017_3655_Article_IEq8.gif

12864_2017_3655_Article_IEq7.gif