Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study

Authors: Philip Wahlster, Mireille Goetghebeur, Sandra Schaller, Christine Kriza, Peter Kolominsky-Rabas, on behalf of the National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health technology assessment and healthcare decision-making are based on multiple criteria and evidence, and heterogeneous opinions of participating stakeholders. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a potential framework to systematize this process and take different perspectives into account. The objectives of this study were to explore perspectives and preferences across German stakeholders when appraising healthcare interventions, using multi-criteria assessment of a heart pulmonary sensor as a case study.

Methods

An online survey of 100 German healthcare stakeholders was conducted using a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM V2.2). Participants were asked to provide i) relative weights for each criterion of the framework; ii) performance scores for a health pulmonary sensor, based on available data synthesized for each criterion; and iii) qualitative feedback on the consideration of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and scores were combined using a linear model to calculate a value estimate across different stakeholders. Differences across types of stakeholders were explored.

Results

The survey was completed by 54 participants. The most important criteria were efficacy, patient reported outcomes, disease severity, safety, and quality of evidence (relative weight >0.075 each). Compared to all participants, policymakers gave more weight to budget impact and quality of evidence. The quantitative appraisal of a pulmonary heart sensor revealed differences in scoring performance of this intervention at the criteria level between stakeholder groups. The highest value estimate of the sensor reached 0.68 (on a scale of 0 to 1, 1 representing maximum value) for industry representatives and the lowest value of 0.40 was reported for policymakers, compared to 0.48 for all participants. Participants indicated that most qualitative criteria should be considered and their impact on the quantitative appraisal was captured transparently.

Conclusions

The study identified important variations in perspectives across German stakeholders when appraising a healthcare intervention and revealed that MCDA can demonstrate the value of a specified technology for all participating stakeholders. Better understanding of these differences at the criteria level, in particular between policymakers and industry representatives, is important to focus innovation aligned with patient health and healthcare system values and constraints.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Waters E, Hall BJ, Armstrong R, Doyle J, Pettman TL, de Silva-Sanigorski A. Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity. J Public Health. 2011;33:462–5.CrossRef
3.
Petticrew M, Eastmure E, Mays N, Knai C, Durand MA, Nolte E. The Public Health Responsibility Deal: how should such a complex public health policy be evaluated? J Public Health. 2013;35:495–501.CrossRef
4.
Wahlster P, Scahill S, Garg S, Babar Z-U-D. Identifying stakeholder opinion regarding access to “high-cost medicines”: A systematic review of the literature. Central Eur J Med. 2014;9:513–27. –8.
5.
Porter ME, Olmsted TE. Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
6.
7.
8.
Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998;17:50–64.CrossRef
9.
10.
11.
Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: A primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3:229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
van Til JA, Dolan JG, Stiggelbout AM, Groothuis KC, Ijzerman MJ. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Patient. 2008;1:127–35.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194–207.CrossRef
14.
Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 2006;15:689–96.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Baltussen R, ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW. Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22:178–85.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15:961–70.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:1–8.CrossRef
18.
Cho KT, Kim SM. Selecting medical devices and materials for development in Korea: the analytic hierarchy process approach. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2003;18:161–74.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Diaby V, Lachaine J. An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: the case of Cote d'Ivoire. Appl Health Econ Health Pol. 2011;9:389–402.CrossRef
20.
Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d'Almeida SA, Bosu WK, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health. 2008;11:1081–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:376–88.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): Field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EUnetHTA core Model(R) in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:105–12.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Varma N, Ricci RP. Telemedicine and cardiac implants: what is the benefit? Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1885–95.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:658–66.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Loh JP, Barbash IM, Waksman R. Overview of the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting on the CardioMEMS Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1571–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bourge RC, Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Aaron MF, Aranda Jr JM, Magalski A, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of an Implantable Continuous Hemodynamic Monitor in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: The COMPASS-HF Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1073–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Hoppe UC, Vanderheyden M, Sievert H, Brandt MC, Tobar R, Wijns W, et al. Chronic monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure in patients with severe heart failure: Multicentre experience of the monitoring Pulmonary Artery Pressure by Implantable device Responding to Ultrasonic Signal (PAPIRUS) II study. Heart. 2009;95:1091–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Verdejo HE, Castro PF, Concepción R, Ferrada MA, Alfaro MA, Alcaíno ME, Deck CC, Bourge RC: Comparison of a Radiofrequency-Based Wireless Pressure Sensor to Swan-Ganz Catheter and Echocardiography for Ambulatory Assessment of Pulmonary Artery Pressure in Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol, 50:2375-2382.
33.
Magalski A, Adamson P, Gadler F, Böehm M, Steinhaus D, Reynolds D, et al. Continuous ambulatory right heart pressure measurements with an implantable hemodynamic monitor: A multicenter, 12-month follow-up study of patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2002;8:63–70.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ritzema J, Troughton R, Melton I, Crozier I, Doughty R, Krum H, et al. Physician-directed patient self-management of left atrial pressure in advanced chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2010;121:1086–95.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Statistisches Bundesamt. Fallpauschalenbezogene Krankenhausstatistik. 2012.
36.
Muntwyler J, Abetel G, Gruner C, Follath F. One-year mortality among unselected outpatients with heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1861–6.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Neumann T, Biermann J, Neumann A, Wasem J, Ertl G, Dietz R, et al. Heart failure: the commonest reason for hospitalization in Germany—medical and economic perspectives. Dtsch Arztebl Intern. 2009;106:269–75.
38.
Rickenbacher P. Herzinsuffizienz: Epidemiologie, Pathophysiologie. Swiss Medical Forum. 2001;1:4.
39.
Sosnowska-Pasiarska B, Bartkowiak R, Wozakowska-Kaplon B, Opolski G, Ponikowski P, Polonski L, et al. Population of Polish patients participating in the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot). Kardiol Pol. 2013;71:234–40.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bundesärztekammer KB, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften: Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Chronische Herzinsuffizienz Langfassung. Programm für Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinien 2012, 1.5.
41.
McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Bohm M, Dickstein K, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1787–847.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Abraham WT. Disease management: remote monitoring in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators, resynchronization devices, and haemodynamic monitors. Europace. 2013;15 Suppl 1:i40–6.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Maarten IJzerman ND, Praveen T, Kevin M. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decision Making. Amsterdam: ISPOR; 2014.
44.
Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A Pilot Study of Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Valuing Orphan Medicines. Value Health 2013.
45.
Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an International Survey of Policy and Clinical Decision Makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:456–65.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Dabisch I, Dethling J, Dintsios CM, Drechsler M, Kalanovic D, Kaskel P, et al. Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Shah KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy. 2009;93:77–84.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Ubel PA, Berry SR, Nadler E, Bell CM, Kozminski MA, Palmer JA, et al. In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival. Health Aff. 2012;31:709–17.CrossRef
50.
Kozminski MA, Neumann PJ, Nadler ES, Jankovic A, Ubel PA. How long and how well: oncologists' attitudes toward the relative value of life-prolonging v. quality of life-enhancing treatments. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:380–5.CrossRef
51.
de Kort SJ, Kenny N, van Dijk P, Gevers S, Richel DJ, Willems DL. Cost issues in new disease-modifying treatments for advanced cancer: In-depth interviews with physicians. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1983–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kieslich K. Social values and health priority setting in Germany. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:374–83.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Hind D, Wailoo AJ, Sutcliffe P. Demands for 'off-licence' access to trastuzumab (Herceptin): content analysis of UK newspaper articles. Health Expect 2010.
54.
Robertson J, Walkom E, Bevan M, Newby D. Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:489.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Fischer KE, Stargardt T. Early Benefit Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Germany: Manufacturers' Expectations versus the Federal Joint Committee's Decisions. Med Decis Making 2014.
56.
Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy. 2010;96:262–4.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000;104:1–15.CrossRef
58.
Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Muller AS, Broschinski S, Politi MC. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol. 2012;31:286–96.CrossRefPubMed
59.
60.
Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Djanatliev A, Wahlster P, Gantner-Bär M, Hofmann B, German R, et al. Technology foresight for medical device development through hybrid simulation: The ProHTA Project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
61.
Rosenberg-Yunger ZR, Thorsteinsdottir H, Daar AS, Martin DK. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2012;105:226–35.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Diseases. 2012;7:74.CrossRef
63.
Shah SGS, Robinson I, AlShawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:514–21.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Marewski JN, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Good judgments do not require complex cognition. Cogn Process. 2010;11:103–21.CrossRefPubMed
65.
66.
Littlejohns P Fau - Weale A, Weale A Fau - Chalkidou K, Chalkidou K Fau - Faden R, Faden R Fau - Teerawattananon Y, Teerawattananon Y: Social values and health policy: a new international research programme.
Metadata
Title
Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study
Authors
Philip Wahlster
Mireille Goetghebeur
Sandra Schaller
Christine Kriza
Peter Kolominsky-Rabas
on behalf of the National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0011-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Feasibility of establishing a biosafety level 3 tuberculosis culture laboratory of acceptable quality standards in a resource-limited setting: an experience from Uganda

Research

Health systems research for policy change: lessons from the implementation of rapid assessment protocols for diabetes in low- and middle-income settings

Commentary

Evaluation as evolution: a Darwinian proposal for health policy and systems research

Research

Identifying potential indicators to measure the outcome of translational cancer research: a mixed methods approach

Research

Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria

Erratum

Erratum to: Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices