IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3608-d361077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Decision Model Approach for Health Technology Assessment and a Case Study for Dialysis Alternatives in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Necla Öztürk

    (Department of Engineering Management, Marmara University, 34083 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Hakan Tozan

    (Affiliation Industrial Engineering Department, Medipol University, 34083 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Özalp Vayvay

    (Faculty of Business, Marmara University, 34083 Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

Background: This paper presents a generic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) decision-making, which can be applied to a wide range of HTA studies, regardless of the healthcare technology type under consideration. Methods: The HTA Core Model ® of EUnetHTA was chosen as a basis for the development of the MCDA model because of its common acceptance among European Union countries. Validation of MCDA4HTA was carried out by an application with the HTA study group of the Turkish Ministry of Health. The commitment of the decision-making group is completed via an online application of 10 different questionnaires. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to determine the weights. Scores of the criteria in MCDA4HTA are gathered directly from the HTA report. The performance matrix in this application is run with fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), fuzzy Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), and goal programming MCDA techniques. Results: Results for fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy TOPSIS, and goal programming are 0.018, 0.309, and 0.191 for peritoneal dialysis and 0.978, 0.677, and 0.327 for hemodialysis, respectively. Conclusions: Peritoneal dialysis is found to be the best choice under the given circumstances, despite its higher costs to society. As an integrated decision-making model for HTA, MCDA4HTA supports both evidence-based decision policy and the transparent commitment of multi-disciplinary stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Necla Öztürk & Hakan Tozan & Özalp Vayvay, 2020. "A New Decision Model Approach for Health Technology Assessment and a Case Study for Dialysis Alternatives in Turkey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3608-:d:361077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Simoens, 2009. "Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-17, November.
    2. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    3. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    4. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    5. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    6. Aouni, Belaid & Kettani, Ossama, 2001. "Goal programming model: A glorious history and a promising future," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 225-231, January.
    7. Mireille M. Goetghebeur & Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Randy J. Levitt & Lonny J. Erickson & Donna Rindress, 2012. "Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 376-388, March.
    8. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Mumtaz Karatas & Ilknur Karacan & Hakan Tozan, 2018. "An integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for health technology assessment," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(4), pages 504-534.
    11. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    12. Bertolini, Massimo & Bevilacqua, Maurizio, 2006. "A combined goal programming—AHP approach to maintenance selection problem," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(7), pages 839-848.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikola Kadoić & Diana Šimić & Jasna Mesarić & Nina Begičević Ređep, 2021. "Measuring Quality of Public Hospitals in Croatia Using a Multi-Criteria Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-28, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    2. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    3. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    4. Lin, Sheng-Wei, 2016. "The critical success factors for a travel application service provider evaluation and selection by travel intermediaries," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-141.
    5. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    6. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
    7. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    9. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    10. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    11. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    12. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    14. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    15. Lim, Chulmin & Rowsell, Joe & Kim, Seongcheol, 2023. "Exploring the killer domains to create new value: A Comparative case study of Canadian and Korean telcos," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277998, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Ruan, Da, 2008. "Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 464-475.
    17. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    18. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    20. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3608-:d:361077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.