Download PDF
Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2018; 23(03): 129-141
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-118360
Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Komplexe Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen: Die Bewertung und Saldierung von Nutzen und Schaden als Gegenstand der multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse

Complex decisions in health care: the assessment and balancing of benefits and risks as a subject of multicriteria decision analysis
Axel C. Mühlbacher
1   Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Gesundheitsökonomie und Medizinmanagement
,
Anika Kaczynski
1   Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Gesundheitsökonomie und Medizinmanagement
,
Katharina Schmidt
2   Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover
,
Charalabos-Markos Dintsios
3   Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Institut für Versorgungsforschung und Gesundheitsökonomie
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 October 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Verfahren der multikriteriellen Entscheidungsanalyse erlauben die Bewertung und Saldierung von Nutzen und Schaden unter der Berücksichtigung von Präferenzen. Im Gesundheitswesen können beispielsweise die Patienten- oder Expertenpräferenzen in Bezug auf verschiedene Nutzen-, Schaden- oder Anwendungsaspekte einer Gesundheitstechnologie im Entscheidungsprozess berücksichtigt werden. Mögliche Ansätze zur Abwägung von Nutzen und Schaden einer Gesundheitstechnologie bieten Methoden wie der Analytic Hierarchy Process oder das Discrete Choice Experiment. Diese und andere Methoden erlauben den Vergleich einzelner Alternativen auf Basis des Gesamtnutzens. Dabei werden verschiedenen Zielkriterien numerische Teilnutzenwerte zugewiesen, welche in ein Gesamtmaß des Nutzens überführt werden, um so den direkten Vergleich der unterschiedlichen Handlungsoptionen zu ermöglichen.

Abstract

Methods of multicriteria decision analysis allow the assessment and balancing of benefits and risks, under consideration of preferences. In health care the patient or expert preferences regarding various benefits, risks or application aspects of a health technology can be taken into account in the decision-making process. Possible methods for weighing the benefit and risks of a health technology are methods such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process or the Discrete Choice Experiment. These and other methods enable the comparison of individual alternatives on the basis of the overall benefit. Thereby, different target criteria are assigned by numerical partial values, which are converted into a total measure of the benefit to enable the direct comparison of the different options.

Schlüsselwörter

Multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalyse (MCDA) - Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen - Patientenpräferenzen - Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) - Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Key words

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Decisions in Health Care - Patient preferences - Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) - Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Mühlbacher AC, Zweifel P, Kaczynski A. et al. Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues. Health Economics Review 2015; 6: 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K. et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making – An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in health 2016; 19: 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P. et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making – Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in health 2016; 19: 125-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mühlbacher A, Juhnke C. Patientenpräferenzen: Methoden und internationale Entwicklungen. Public Health Forum 2016; 24: 158-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2013; 4: 159-172
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Juhnke C, Mühlbacher AC. Alles in einer Dimension: Wie lassen sich Patientenpräferenzen in einem wissenschaftlichen Konzept der Nutzenbewertung abbilden?. GesundheitsWirtschaft 2016; 10: 6-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zimmermann H-J, Gutsche L. Multi-Criteria Analyse. Springer; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Laux H, Gillenkirch RM. Schenk-Mathes. et al. Entscheidungstheorie. Springer-Verlag; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2013; 18: 159-172
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis : an integrated approach. Boston, Mass. [u. a.]: Kluwer Academic Publ; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D. et al. Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature. PharmacoEconomics 2014; 32: 345-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2006; 4: 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2016; 14: 253-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. The journal of political economy 1966; 74: 132-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka 1974; 1974: 105-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, Mass. [u. a.]: MIT Press; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P. et al. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health economics review 2016; 6: 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. The Expert Perspective in Treatment of Functional Gastrointestinal Conditions: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Using AHP and BWS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2016; 23: 112-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Value in Health. 2012 DOI:
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Department for Communities and Local Goverment. Multicriteria Analysis: A Manual. Department for Communities and Local Goverment; 2009. DOI:
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlicheit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Wahlbasierte Conjoint-Analyse – Pilotprojekt zur Identifikation, Gewichtung und Priorisierung multipler Attribute in der Indikation Hepatitis C; IQWiG-Berichte – Nr. 227. In: unter Mitwirkung von Mühlbacher A, Bridges J. et al eds. Köln: 2014
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mühlbacher AC, Sadler A. The probabilistic efficiency frontier: a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany put into practice for hepatitis C treatment options. Value in Health 2017; 20: 266-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Allgemeine Methoden. Version 4.2 vom 22.04.2015.. 2015 DOI:
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schwalm A, Danner M, Seidl A. et al. Wo steht die Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung des IQWiG. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 2010; 53: 615-622
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F. et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy 2010; 96: 262-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Value in Health 2012; 15: 1172-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Der Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Eine Methode zur Entscheidungsunterstützung im Gesundheitswesen. PharmacoEconomics German Research Articles 2013; 11: 119-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Patientenpräferenzen in der medikamentösen Therapie von diabetes mellitus Typ 2. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz 2015; 58: 452-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mühlbacher A, Bethge S. What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC: health economics in prevention and care. 2015 DOI: 10.1007/s10198–015–0750–5: 1–16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Kaczynski A. et al. Zielkriterien der medikamentösen Therapie des Diabetes Typ II: Eine Analyse der Patientenperspektive mit Analytic Hierarchy Process und Best-Worst Scaling. Das Gesundheitswesen 2016; 78: 326-336
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mühlbacher A, Kaczynski A. Multikriterielle Entscheidungsprobleme bei der Nutzenbewertung im Gesundheitswesen. In: Amelung VE, Eble S, Hildebrandt H. Hrsg. Patientenorientierung – Schlüssel für mehr Qualität. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Bundesverbandes Managed Care; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H. et al. Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Medical Decision Making 2012; 32: 376-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lootsma FA. Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and difference judgement. Springer; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Roberts R, Goodwin P. Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2002; 11: 291-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D. et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2013; 16: 3-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ostermann J, Njau B, Brown DS. et al. Heterogeneous HIV testing preferences in an urban setting in Tanzania: results from a discrete choice experiment. PloS one 2014; 9 e92100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mühlbacher A, Sadler A. Die probabilistische Effizienzgrenze: eine Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalyse von Therapieoptionen im Indikationsgebiet Hepatitis C. Das Gesundheitswesen. 2017 im Druck
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Marsh K, Caro JJ, Muszbek N. Does the Future Belong to MCDA?. ISPOR Connections 2012; 18: 9-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Mühlbacher AC, Stoll M, Mahlich J. et al. Patient preferences for HIV/AIDS therapy – a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ Rev 2013; 3: 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sullivan T. Using MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) to prioritise publicly-funded health care University of Otago. 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D. et al. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ 2006; 15: 689-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 2 report: applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Revision 1. In: Agency EM. ed. London: 2011
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 45 European Medicines Agency (EMA). Benefit-risk methodology project: update on work package 5: effects table pilot (phase I). In. London: 2014
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP. et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surgical endoscopy 2015; 29: 2984-2993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hunter NL, O’Callaghan KM, Califf RM. Engaging patients across the spectrum of medical product development: view from the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA 2015; 314: 2499-2500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Patient Preference Information – Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling. Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders. In: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Johnson FR, Mühlbacher AC. Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: A Guide to State of the Practice. Value in Health. 2016 (under review)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F. et al. Integrating patients‘ views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. International journal of technology assessment in health care 2011; 27: 369-375
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Severin F, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A. et al. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments. European Journal of Human Genetics 2013; 21: 1202-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Diaby V, Campbell K, Goeree R. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Operations Research for Health Care 2013; 2: 20-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J. et al. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of public health 2013; 35: 460-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Kriza C. et al. Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). BMC health services research 2015; 15: 1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Walker A. Challenges in Using MCDA for Reimbursement Decisions on New Medicines?. Value in Health 2016; 19: 123-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: The Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2016; 14: 29-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar