Display options
Cite
van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, et al. Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:22doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-22.
van Til, J., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C., Lieferink, M., Dolan, J., & Goetghebeur, M. (2014). Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 1222. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-22
van Til, Janine, et al. "Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework." Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E vol. 12 (2014): 22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-22
van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M. Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Nov 18;12:22. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-22. eCollection 2014. PMID: 25904823; PMCID: PMC4406027.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Nov 18;12:22. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-22. eCollection 2014.

Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework.

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E

Janine van Til, Catharina Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Marijke Lieferink, James Dolan, Mireille Goetghebeur

Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
  2. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY USA.
  3. LASER Analytica & University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.

PMID: 25904823 PMCID: PMC4406027 DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-22

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support regulatory and reimbursement decision making. The EVIDEM framework was developed to provide pragmatic multi-criteria decision support in health care, to estimate the value of healthcare interventions, and to aid in priority-setting. The objectives of this study were to test 1) the influence of different weighting techniques on the overall outcome of an MCDA exercise, 2) the discriminative power in weighting different criteria of such techniques, and 3) whether different techniques result in similar weights in weighting the criteria set proposed by the EVIDEM framework.

METHODS: A sample of 60 Dutch and Canadian students participated in the study. Each student used an online survey to provide weights for 14 criteria with two different techniques: a five-point rating scale and one of the following techniques selected randomly: ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparison and best worst scaling.

RESULTS: The results of this study indicate that there is no effect of differences in weights on value estimates at the group level. On an individual level, considerable differences in criteria weights and rank order occur as a result of the weight elicitation method used, and the ability of different techniques to discriminate in criteria importance. Of the five techniques tested, the pair-wise comparison of criteria has the highest ability to discriminate in weights when fourteen criteria are compared.

CONCLUSIONS: When weights are intended to support group decisions, the choice of elicitation technique has negligible impact on criteria weights and the overall value of an innovation. However, when weights are used to support individual decisions, the choice of elicitation technique influences outcome and studies that use dissimilar techniques cannot be easily compared. Weight elicitation through pairwise comparison of criteria is preferred when taking into account its superior ability to discriminate between criteria and respondents' preferences.

Keywords: Decision support; Health care; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Preferences; Weighting techniques

References

  1. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:581-606 - PubMed
  2. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997 Apr;70(1):65-72 - PubMed
  3. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014 Jul;23(7):667-78 - PubMed
  4. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012 Feb 29;10(1):2 - PubMed
  5. J Health Econ. 2007 Jan;26(1):171-89 - PubMed
  6. Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1172-81 - PubMed
  7. Med Decis Making. 1999 Oct-Dec;19(4):487-98 - PubMed
  8. Med Decis Making. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):376-88 - PubMed
  9. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10 - PubMed
  10. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Nov 30;11:329 - PubMed
  11. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010 Apr 08;8:4 - PubMed
  12. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):105-12 - PubMed
  13. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):456-65 - PubMed
  14. Med Decis Making. 1989 Jan-Mar;9(1):40-50 - PubMed
  15. Patient. 2008 Apr 1;1(2):127-35 - PubMed
  16. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012 Jul 18;10(1):9 - PubMed
  17. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Aug 21;4:14 - PubMed
  18. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec 22;8:270 - PubMed
  19. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011 Oct 26;9:16 - PubMed
  20. Patient. 2010;3(4):229-248 - PubMed
  21. Invest New Drugs. 2013 Apr;31(2):473-8 - PubMed

Publication Types