...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Public Health >Assessing the Preferences for Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Treatments for Rare Diseases
【24h】

Assessing the Preferences for Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Treatments for Rare Diseases

机译:评估稀有疾病治疗中多标准决策分析标准的偏好

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Increasingly, multi-criteria decision analysis has gained importance as a method by which to assess the value of orphan drugs. However, very little attention has been given to the weight (relative preferences) of the individual criteria used in a framework. Aims: This study sought to gain an understanding of the preferential weights that should be allocated in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs, from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Method: Using key MCDA criteria for orphan drugs reported in the literature, we developed an interactive web-based survey tool to capture preferences for different criteria from a general stakeholder sample who were requested to assign weights from a reimbursement perspective. Each criterion could be assigned a weight on a sliding scale from 0 to 100% as long as the sum of all the criteria was 100%. We subsequently used the interactive tool with an expert focus group, followed up with a group discussion regarding each criterion and their perspectives on the weight that each criterion should be allocated when assessing an orphan drug. The expert focus group participants were then able to adjust their weights, if the group discussion had changed their perspectives. Results: The interactive tool was completed by 120 general stakeholder sample from a wide range of countries and professional backgrounds and an expert focus group of ten members. The results showed the differences in perspectives on the importance of criteria. Both groups considered Treatment efficacy to be the most important criterion. The general stakeholder sample weighted Treatment safety at 12.03% compared to the expert focus group's average of 20%. The results also demonstrated the value of the group discussion, which provided additional insights into the perspectives on the importance of criteria in assessing orphan drugs. Conclusion: This study aimed to contribute to the important aspect of preferences for different criteria in MCDA. This study sheds light on the important aspect of the preferences of the different criteria. All respondents agreed on the relative importance of Treatment efficacy and Treatment safety , criteria that are captured in conventional cost-effectiveness studies, but they also expressed the view that in addition to those, several disease-related and drug-related criteria should be included in MCDA frameworks for assessing orphan drugs.
机译:背景:越来越多地,多标准决策分析已经成为评估孤儿药物价值的方法的重要性。然而,已经很少注意框架中使用的个体标准的重量(相对偏好)。目的:这项研究从多利益相关者的角度来看,这项研究旨在了解应该在孤儿药物的多标准决策分析框架中分配的优惠权重。方法:使用文献中报告的孤儿药物的关键MCDA标准,我们开发了一个基于网络的互动网络的调查工具,以捕获从被要求从报销角度分配权重的一般利益相关者样本的不同标准的偏好。只要所有标准的总和为100%,就可以将每个标准从0到100%分配给滑块的重量。我们随后使用了与专家焦点组的交互式工具,随后对每个标准的群体讨论以及它们在评估孤儿药物时应分配每个标准的重量的视角。如果集团讨论改变了他们的观点,那么专家集团参与者将能够调整其权重。结果:互动工具由120名普通利益相关者采用来自各种国家和专业背景以及十名成员的专家焦点小组完成。结果表明了标准重要性的观点差异。这两组都认为治疗效果是最重要的标准。与专家焦点集团的平均值相比,普通利益攸关方将加权治疗安全为12.03%。结果还证明了本集团讨论的价值,该价值提供了对评估孤儿药物重要性的重要性的额外见解。结论:本研究旨在为MCDA不同标准的偏好方面做出贡献。本研究揭示了不同标准偏好的重要方面。所有受访者都同意治疗疗效和治疗安全性的相对重要性,以常规成本效益研究捕获的标准,但他们还表达了该观点,除了那些,还应包含几种疾病相关和毒品相关的标准。 MCDA用于评估孤儿药物的框架。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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