107
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Defining equity in health

          P Braveman (2003)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis

            Priority setting of health interventions is often ad-hoc and resources are not used to an optimal extent. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Interventions may be chosen to maximize general population health, to reduce health inequalities of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, ad/or to respond to life-threatening situations, all with respect to practical and budgetary constraints. This is the type of problem that policy makers are typically bad at solving rationally, unaided. They tend to use heuristic or intuitive approaches to simplify complexity, and in the process, important information is ignored. Next, policy makers may select interventions for only political motives. This indicates the need for rational and transparent approaches to priority setting. Over the past decades, a number of approaches have been developed, including evidence-based medicine, burden of disease analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and equity analyses. However, these approaches concentrate on single criteria only, whereas in reality, policy makers need to make choices taking into account multiple criteria simultaneously. Moreover, they do not cover all criteria that are relevant to policy makers. Therefore, the development of a multi-criteria approach to priority setting is necessary, and this has indeed recently been identified as one of the most important issues in health system research. In other scientific disciplines, multi-criteria decision analysis is well developed, has gained widespread acceptance and is routinely used. This paper presents the main principles of multi-criteria decision analysis. There are only a very few applications to guide resource allocation decisions in health. We call for a shift away from present priority setting tools in health – that tend to focus on single criteria – towards transparent and systematic approaches that take into account all relevant criteria simultaneously.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pathways to “Evidence-Informed” Policy and Practice: A Framework for Action

              Bowen and Zwi propose a new framework that can help researchers and policy makers to navigate the use of evidence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central
                1478-7547
                2012
                18 July 2012
                : 10
                : 9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]BioMedCom Consultants, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
                [4 ]York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Health Administration, Faculty of medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
                Article
                1478-7547-10-9
                10.1186/1478-7547-10-9
                3495194
                22808944
                6b04fb7b-cd90-43a2-bb2e-9c85f9d49289
                Copyright ©2012 Guindo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 January 2012
                : 28 June 2012
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                decisionmaking,priority-setting,healthcare,resource allocation,criteria
                Public health
                decisionmaking, priority-setting, healthcare, resource allocation, criteria

                Comments

                Comment on this article