首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research
【2h】

Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research

机译:效益和风险的系统评估:使用比较层次研究进行比较分析的多准则决策研究方案

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: Regulatory decision-making involves assessment of risks and benefits of medications at the time of approval or when relevant safety concerns arise with a medication. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates decision-making in complex situations involving tradeoffs by considering risks and benefits of alternatives. The AHP allows a more structured method of synthesizing and understanding evidence in the context of importance assigned to outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate the use of an AHP in a simulated committee setting selecting oral medications for type 2 diabetes.  >Methods: This study protocol describes the AHP in five sequential steps using a small group of diabetes experts representing various clinical disciplines. The first step will involve defining the goal of the decision and developing the AHP model. In the next step, we will collect information about how well alternatives are expected to fulfill the decision criteria. In the third step, we will compare the ability of the alternatives to fulfill the criteria and judge the importance of eight criteria relative to the decision goal of the optimal medication choice for type 2 diabetes. We will use pairwise comparisons to sequentially compare the pairs of alternative options regarding their ability to fulfill the criteria. In the fourth step, the scales created in the third step will be combined to create a summary score indicating how well the alternatives met the decision goal. The resulting scores will be expressed as percentages and will indicate the alternative medications' relative abilities to fulfill the decision goal. The fifth step will consist of sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of changing the estimates. We will also conduct a cognitive interview and process evaluation.  >Discussion: Multi-criteria decision analysis using the AHP will aid, support and enhance the ability of decision makers to make evidence-based informed decisions consistent with their values and preferences.
机译:>背景:监管决策涉及批准时或药物引起相关安全问题时评估药物的风险和收益。层次分析法(AHP)通过考虑替代方案的风险和收益,在涉及折衷的复杂情况下促进决策。 AHP允许在分配给结果的重要性的背景下使用更结构化的方法来综合和理解证据。我们的目标是评估在选择2型糖尿病口服药物的模拟委员会中使用AHP的情况。 >方法:该研究方案使用五个代表各个临床学科的糖尿病专家,按五个连续步骤描述了AHP。第一步将包括定义决策目标和开发AHP模型。在下一步中,我们将收集有关预期替代品满足决策标准的程度的信息。在第三步中,我们将比较备选方案满足标准的能力,并判断相对于2型糖尿病最佳药物选择决策目标的八个标准的重要性。我们将使用成对比较来顺序比较成对的备选选项对它们满足条件的能力。在第四步中,将合并在第三步中创建的量表,以创建摘要分数,以指示备选方案达到决策目标的程度。所得分数将以百分比表示,并将指示替代药物实现决策目标的相对能力。第五步将包括敏感性分析,以探讨更改估算值的影响。我们还将进行认知访谈和过程评估。 >讨论:使用AHP进行的多准则决策分析将帮助,支持并增强决策者做出与他们的价值观和偏好相符的基于证据的知情决策的能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号