The use of MCDA in HTA: great potential, but more effort needed

Kevin Marsh; Mark John Sculpher; J. Jaime Caro; Tommi Tervonen

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001

The use of MCDA in HTA: great potential, but more effort needed

Kevin Marsh, Mark John Sculpher, J. Jaime Caro, Tommi Tervonen

Centre for Health Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The potential for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) has been much discussed, and
various HTA agencies are piloting or applying MCDA. Alongside these developments, good practice guidelines for the application of MCDA in health care have been developed. An assessment of current applications of MCDA to HTA in light of good practice guidelines reveals,
however, that many have methodologic flaws that undermine their usefulness. Three challenges are considered: the use of additive
models, a lack of connection between criteria scales and weights, and the use of MCDA in economic evaluation. More attention needs to
be paid to MCDA good practice by researchers, journal editors, and decision makers and further methodologic developments are required
if MCDA is to achieve its potential to support HTA.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	394-397
Number of pages	4
Journal	Value in Health
Volume	21
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001
Publication status	Published - 26 Apr 2018

Bibliographical note

© 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001

Critique of MCDA for HTA clean, final version
© 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details
Accepted author manuscript, 142 KB

Cite this

@article{54a529bcf938473f838598e2f18102b4,

title = "The use of MCDA in HTA: great potential, but more effort needed",

abstract = "The potential for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) has been much discussed, andvarious HTA agencies are piloting or applying MCDA. Alongside these developments, good practice guidelines for the application of MCDA in health care have been developed. An assessment of current applications of MCDA to HTA in light of good practice guidelines reveals,however, that many have methodologic flaws that undermine their usefulness. Three challenges are considered: the use of additivemodels, a lack of connection between criteria scales and weights, and the use of MCDA in economic evaluation. More attention needs tobe paid to MCDA good practice by researchers, journal editors, and decision makers and further methodologic developments are requiredif MCDA is to achieve its potential to support HTA. ",

author = "Kevin Marsh and Sculpher, {Mark John} and Caro, {J. Jaime} and Tommi Tervonen",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher{\textquoteright}s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details",

year = "2018",

month = apr,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "394--397",

journal = "Value in Health",

issn = "1098-3015",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The use of MCDA in HTA

T2 - great potential, but more effort needed

AU - Marsh, Kevin

AU - Sculpher, Mark John

AU - Caro, J. Jaime

AU - Tervonen, Tommi

N1 - © 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

PY - 2018/4/26

Y1 - 2018/4/26

N2 - The potential for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) has been much discussed, andvarious HTA agencies are piloting or applying MCDA. Alongside these developments, good practice guidelines for the application of MCDA in health care have been developed. An assessment of current applications of MCDA to HTA in light of good practice guidelines reveals,however, that many have methodologic flaws that undermine their usefulness. Three challenges are considered: the use of additivemodels, a lack of connection between criteria scales and weights, and the use of MCDA in economic evaluation. More attention needs tobe paid to MCDA good practice by researchers, journal editors, and decision makers and further methodologic developments are requiredif MCDA is to achieve its potential to support HTA.

AB - The potential for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) has been much discussed, andvarious HTA agencies are piloting or applying MCDA. Alongside these developments, good practice guidelines for the application of MCDA in health care have been developed. An assessment of current applications of MCDA to HTA in light of good practice guidelines reveals,however, that many have methodologic flaws that undermine their usefulness. Three challenges are considered: the use of additivemodels, a lack of connection between criteria scales and weights, and the use of MCDA in economic evaluation. More attention needs tobe paid to MCDA good practice by researchers, journal editors, and decision makers and further methodologic developments are requiredif MCDA is to achieve its potential to support HTA.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001

M3 - Article

SN - 1098-3015

VL - 21

SP - 394

EP - 397

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

IS - 4

ER -