Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

Authors: Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, Fenna Leijten, Maaike Hoedemakers, Apostolos Tsiachristas, Nick Verbeek, Milad Karimi, Roland Bal, Antoinette de Bont, Kamrul Islam, Jan Erik Askildsen, Thomas Czypionka, Markus Kraus, Mirjana Huic, János György Pitter, Verena Vogt, Jonathan Stokes, Erik Baltaxe, on behalf of the SELFIE consortium

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Evaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Methods and results

This paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in the 4-year, EU-funded SELFIE project. In step one, qualitative research was undertaken to better understand the decision-context of these programmes. The programmes faced decisions related to their sustainability in terms of reimbursement, continuation, extension, and/or wider implementation. In step two, a uniform set of decision criteria was defined in terms of outcomes measured across the 17 programmes: physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care, and total health and social care costs. These were supplemented by programme-type specific outcomes. Step three presents the quasi-experimental studies designed to measure the performance of the programmes on the decision criteria. Step four gives details of the methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, Swing Weighting) to determine the relative importance of the decision criteria among five stakeholder groups per country. An example in step five illustrates the value-based method of MCDA by which the performance of the programmes on each decision criterion is combined with the weight of the respective criterion to derive an overall value score. Step six describes how we deal with uncertainty and introduces the Conditional Multi-Attribute Acceptability Curve. Step seven addresses the interpretation of results in stakeholder workshops.

Discussion

By discussing our solutions to the challenges involved in creating a uniform MCDA approach for the evaluation of different programmes, this paper provides guidance to future evaluations and stimulates debate on how to evaluate integrated care for multi-morbidity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Afshar S, Roderick PJ, Kowal P, Dimitrov BD, Hill AG. Global patterns of multimorbidity: a comparison of 28 countries using the world health surveys. In: Hoque MN, Pecotte B, McGehee MA, editors. Applied demography and public health in the 21st century. Applied demography series 8: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 381–402. Afshar S, Roderick PJ, Kowal P, Dimitrov BD, Hill AG. Global patterns of multimorbidity: a comparison of 28 countries using the world health surveys. In: Hoque MN, Pecotte B, McGehee MA, editors. Applied demography and public health in the 21st century. Applied demography series 8: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 381–402.
4.
go back to reference NICE. National Institute for health and care excellence. Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management. NICE guideline NG56. Methods, evidence, and recommendations. London: NICE; 2016. NICE. National Institute for health and care excellence. Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management. NICE guideline NG56. Methods, evidence, and recommendations. London: NICE; 2016.
5.
go back to reference Menotti A, Mulder I, Nissinen A, Giampaoli S, Feskens EJ, Kromhout D. Prevalence of morbidity and multimorbidity in elderly male populations and their impact on 10-year all-cause mortality: the FINE study (Finland, Italy, Netherlands, elderly). J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):680–6. PubMed PMID: 11438408CrossRefPubMed Menotti A, Mulder I, Nissinen A, Giampaoli S, Feskens EJ, Kromhout D. Prevalence of morbidity and multimorbidity in elderly male populations and their impact on 10-year all-cause mortality: the FINE study (Finland, Italy, Netherlands, elderly). J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):680–6. PubMed PMID: 11438408CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Mortensen OS, Andersen LL. Joint association of multimorbidity and work ability with risk of long-term sickness absence: a prospective cohort study with register follow-up. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(2):146–54. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3620. PubMed PMID: 28060994CrossRefPubMed Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Mortensen OS, Andersen LL. Joint association of multimorbidity and work ability with risk of long-term sickness absence: a prospective cohort study with register follow-up. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(2):146–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5271/​sjweh.​3620. PubMed PMID: 28060994CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference van der Heide I, Snoeijs S, Melchiorre MG, Quattribi S, Boerma W, Schellevis V, et al. Innovating care for people with multiple chronic conditions in Europe: an overview. Utrecht: ICARE4EU. NIVEL; 2015. van der Heide I, Snoeijs S, Melchiorre MG, Quattribi S, Boerma W, Schellevis V, et al. Innovating care for people with multiple chronic conditions in Europe: an overview. Utrecht: ICARE4EU. NIVEL; 2015.
21.
go back to reference Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multi criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multi criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Department of Communities and Local Government. UK government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: 2009. Department of Communities and Local Government. UK government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: 2009.
29.
go back to reference Leijten F, Hoedemakers M, Struckmann V, Kraus M, Stokes J, Zemplényi A, et al. Defining good health and care from the perspective of persons with multi-morbidity: Results from focus groups in eight European countries. In press. Leijten F, Hoedemakers M, Struckmann V, Kraus M, Stokes J, Zemplényi A, et al. Defining good health and care from the perspective of persons with multi-morbidity: Results from focus groups in eight European countries. In press.
35.
go back to reference Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2010. Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2010.
36.
go back to reference Stuart EA, Huskamp HA, Duckworth K, Simmons J, Song Z, Chernew M, et al. Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol. 2014;14(4):166–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0123-z. PubMed PMID: 25530705; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4267761CrossRef Stuart EA, Huskamp HA, Duckworth K, Simmons J, Song Z, Chernew M, et al. Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol. 2014;14(4):166–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10742-014-0123-z. PubMed PMID: 25530705; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4267761CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Tervonen T, Gelhorn H, Sri Bhashyam S, Poon JL, Gries KS, Rentz A, et al. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4255. PubMed PMID: 28696023 Tervonen T, Gelhorn H, Sri Bhashyam S, Poon JL, Gries KS, Rentz A, et al. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017; https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pds.​4255. PubMed PMID: 28696023
39.
go back to reference Marsh K, M IJ, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015. 12.016. PubMed PMID: 27021745CrossRefPubMed Marsh K, M IJ, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2015. 12.016. PubMed PMID: 27021745CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3. PubMed PMID: 10834905; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1118112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3. PubMed PMID: 10834905; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1118112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
go back to reference Edwards W, Barron FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;60:306–25.CrossRef Edwards W, Barron FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;60:306–25.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Byeong SA. Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;212:552–9.CrossRef Byeong SA. Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;212:552–9.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Claxton K. Three questions to ask when examining MCDA. Value & Outcomes Spotlight. 2015; January/February 2015. Claxton K. Three questions to ask when examining MCDA. Value & Outcomes Spotlight. 2015; January/February 2015.
54.
go back to reference Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in healthcare and Public Health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04160-xi. Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in healthcare and Public Health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hsdr04160-xi.
55.
go back to reference Pimperl A, Schulte T, Muhlbacher A, Rosenmoller M, Busse R, Groene O, et al. Evaluating the impact of an accountable care organization on population health: the quasi-experimental Design of the German Gesundes Kinzigtal. Population Health Manag. 2017;20(3):239–48. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2016.0036. PubMed PMID: 27565005CrossRef Pimperl A, Schulte T, Muhlbacher A, Rosenmoller M, Busse R, Groene O, et al. Evaluating the impact of an accountable care organization on population health: the quasi-experimental Design of the German Gesundes Kinzigtal. Population Health Manag. 2017;20(3):239–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​pop.​2016.​0036. PubMed PMID: 27565005CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Bradlow ET, Hu Y, Ho T-H. Modeling behavioral regularities of consumer learning in conjoint analysis. J Mark Res. 2004;41(4):392–6.CrossRef Bradlow ET, Hu Y, Ho T-H. Modeling behavioral regularities of consumer learning in conjoint analysis. J Mark Res. 2004;41(4):392–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
Authors
Maureen Rutten-van Mölken
Fenna Leijten
Maaike Hoedemakers
Apostolos Tsiachristas
Nick Verbeek
Milad Karimi
Roland Bal
Antoinette de Bont
Kamrul Islam
Jan Erik Askildsen
Thomas Czypionka
Markus Kraus
Mirjana Huic
János György Pitter
Verena Vogt
Jonathan Stokes
Erik Baltaxe
on behalf of the SELFIE consortium
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3367-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue