Dataset Information

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Methods and results

This paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in the 4-year, EU-funded SELFIE project. In step one, qualitative research was undertaken to better understand the decision-context of these programmes. The programmes faced decisions related to their sustainability in terms of reimbursement, continuation, extension, and/or wider implementation. In step two, a uniform set of decision criteria was defined in terms of outcomes measured across the 17 programmes: physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care, and total health and social care costs. These were supplemented by programme-type specific outcomes. Step three presents the quasi-experimental studies designed to measure the performance of the programmes on the decision criteria. Step four gives details of the methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, Swing Weighting) to determine the relative importance of the decision criteria among five stakeholder groups per country. An example in step five illustrates the value-based method of MCDA by which the performance of the programmes on each decision criterion is combined with the weight of the respective criterion to derive an overall value score. Step six describes how we deal with uncertainty and introduces the Conditional Multi-Attribute Acceptability Curve. Step seven addresses the interpretation of results in stakeholder workshops.

Discussion

By discussing our solutions to the challenges involved in creating a uniform MCDA approach for the evaluation of different programmes, this paper provides guidance to future evaluations and stimulates debate on how to evaluate integrated care for multi-morbidity.

SUBMITTER: Rutten-van Molken M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6057041 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Rutten-van Mölken Maureen M Leijten Fenna F Hoedemakers Maaike M Tsiachristas Apostolos A Verbeek Nick N Karimi Milad M Bal Roland R de Bont Antoinette A Islam Kamrul K Askildsen Jan Erik JE Czypionka Thomas T Kraus Markus M Huic Mirjana M Pitter János György JG Vogt Verena V Stokes Jonathan J Baltaxe Erik E

BMC health services research 20180724 1

<h4>Background</h4>Evaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).<h4>Methods and results</h4>This paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in t ...[more]

PMID: 30041653

Similar Datasets

Project description:In densely populated areas, surface waters are affected by many sources of pollution. Besides classical pollutants like nutrients and organic matter that lead to eutrophication, micropollutants from various point- and non-point sources are getting more attention by water quality managers. For cost-effective management an integrated assessment is needed that takes into account all relevant pollutants and all sources of pollution within a catchment. Due to the difficulty of identifying and quantifying sources of pollution and the need for considering long-term changes in boundary conditions, typically substantial uncertainty exists about the consequences of potential management alternatives to improve surface water quality. We therefore need integrated assessment methods that are able to deal with multiple objectives and account for various sources of uncertainty. This paper aims to contribute to integrated, prospective water management by combining a) multi-criteria decision support methods to structure the decision process and quantify preferences, b) integrated water quality modelling to predict consequences of management alternatives accounting for uncertainty, and c) scenario planning to consider uncertainty from potential future climate and socio-economic developments, to evaluate the future cost-effectiveness of water quality management alternatives at the catchment scale. It aims to demonstrate the usefulness of multi-attribute value functions for water quality assessment to i) propagate uncertainties throughout the entire assessment procedure, ii) facilitate the aggregation of multiple objectives while avoiding discretization errors when using categories for sub-objectives, iii) transparently communicate the results. We show how to use such multi-attribute value functions for model-based decision support in water quality management. We showcase the procedure for the Mönchaltorfer Aa catchment on the Swiss Plateau. We evaluate ten different water quality management alternatives, including current practice, that tackle macro- and micropollutants from a wide spectrum of agricultural and urban sources. We evaluate costs and water quality effects of the alternatives under four different socio-economic scenarios for the horizon 2050 under present and future climate projections and visualize their uncertainty. While the performance of alternatives is catchment specific, the methods can be transferred to other places and other management situations. Results confirm the need for cross-sectoral coordination of different management actions and interdisciplinary collaboration to support the development of prospective strategies to improve water quality.

Project description:We compare the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)-or more precisely, models used in multi-attribute value theory (MAVT)-to integrated assessment (IA) models for supporting long-term water supply planning in a small town case study in Switzerland. They are used to evaluate thirteen system scale water supply alternatives in four future scenarios regarding forty-four objectives, covering technical, social, environmental, and economic aspects. The alternatives encompass both conventional and unconventional solutions and differ regarding technical, spatial and organizational characteristics. This paper focuses on the impact assessment and final evaluation step of the structured MCDA decision support process. We analyze the performance of the alternatives for ten stakeholders. We demonstrate the implications of model assumptions by comparing two IA and three MAVT evaluation model layouts of different complexity. For this comparison, we focus on the validity (ranking stability), desirability (value), and distinguishability (value range) of the alternatives given the five model layouts. These layouts exclude or include stakeholder preferences and uncertainties. Even though all five led us to identify the same best alternatives, they did not produce identical rankings. We found that the MAVT-type models provide higher distinguishability and a more robust basis for discussion than the IA-type models. The needed complexity of the model, however, should be determined based on the intended use of the model within the decision support process. The best-performing alternatives had consistently strong performance for all stakeholders and future scenarios, whereas the current water supply system was outperformed in all evaluation layouts. The best-performing alternatives comprise proactive pipe rehabilitation, adapted firefighting provisions, and decentralized water storage and/or treatment. We present recommendations for possible ways of improving water supply planning in the case study and beyond.

Project description:BackgroundTo provide value-based care for patients with multi-morbidity, innovative integrated care programmes and comprehensive evaluations of such programmes are required. In Norway, a new programme called "Holistic Continuity of Patient Care" (HCPC) addresses the issue of multi-morbidity by providing integrated care within learning networks for frail elderly patients who receive municipal home care services or a short-term stay in a nursing home. This study conducts a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate whether the HCPC programme performs better on a large set of outcomes corresponding to the 'triple aim' compared to usual care.MethodsProspective longitudinal survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up after 6-months. The assessment of HCPC was implemented by a novel MCDA framework. The relative weights of importance of the outcomes used in the MCDA were obtained from a discrete choice experiment among five different groups of stakeholders. The performance score was estimated using a quasi-experimental design and linear mixed methods. Performance scores were standardized and multiplied by their weights of importance to obtain the overall MCDA value by stakeholder group.ResultsAt baseline in the HCPC and usual care groups, respectively, 120 and 89 patients responded, of whom 87 and 41 responded at follow-up. The average age at baseline was 80.0 years for HCPC and 83.6 for usual care. Matching reduced the standardized differences between the groups for patient background characteristics and outcome variables. The MCDA results indicated that HCPC was preferred to usual care irrespective of stakeholders. The better performance of HCPC was mostly driven by improvements in enjoyment of life, psychological well-being, and social relationships and participation. Results were consistent with sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation.ConclusionFrail elderly with multi-morbidity represent complex health problems at large costs for society in terms of health- and social care. This study is a novel contribution to assessing and understanding HCPC programme performance respecting the multi-dimensionality of desired outcomes. Integrated care programmes like HCPC may improve well-being of patients, be cost-saving, and contribute to the pursuit of evidence based gradual reforms in the care of frail elderly.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives.ObjectiveTo illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments.MethodsAn MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework.ResultsOn consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria "overall survival" (mean 0.22), "burden of disease" (mean 0.21) and "adverse events" (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to "progression-free survival" and "cost of treatment" (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study.ConclusionThe Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.

Project description:Background. Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are facing a lower-limb amputation often require a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) or a transtibial amputation (TTA). A TMA preserves more of the patient's limb and may provide better mobility but has a lower probability of primary wound healing relative to a TTA and may result in additional amputation surgeries. Understanding the differences in how patients and providers prioritize key outcomes may enhance the amputation decisional process. Purpose. To develop and pilot test a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to elicit patient values around amputation-level selection and compare those with provider perceptions of patient values. Methods. We conducted literature reviews to identify and measure the performance of criteria important to patients. Because the quantitative literature was sparse, we developed a Sheffield elicitation framework exercise to elicit criteria performance from subject matter experts. We piloted our MCDA among patients and providers to understand tool acceptability and preliminarily assess differences in patient and provider priorities. Results. Five criteria of importance were identified: ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation intensity, limb length, and prosthetic/orthotic device ease. Patients and providers successfully completed the MCDA and identified challenges in doing so. We propose potential solutions to these challenges. The results of the pilot test suggest differences in patient and provider outcome priorities. Limitations. The pilot test study enrolled a small sample of providers and patients. Conclusions. We successfully implemented the pilot study to patients and providers, received helpful feedback, and identified solutions to improve the tool. Implications. Once modified, our MCDA tool will be suitable for wider rollout. Patients and providers have successfully completed our MCDA, and patients feel the MCDA may be useful in clinical practice.We encountered several methodologic challenges and identified approaches to ease participant burden.When data are sparse, using the Sheffield elicitation framework is helpful in creating a performance matrix, although patients relied largely on their amputation experiences to complete the exercise. Blinding the alternatives may help patients better understand the process.

Dataset Information

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Background

Methods and results

Discussion

Publications

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets