IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v251y2017i1d10.1007_s10479-015-1910-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Jakubczyk

    () (Warsaw School of Economics)

  • Bogumił Kamiński

    (Warsaw School of Economics)

Abstract

Decision making in health technology assessment (HTA) involves multiple criteria (clinical outcomes vs. cost) and risk (criteria measured with estimation error). A survey conducted among Polish HTA experts shows that opinions how to trade off health against money should be treated as fuzzy. We propose an approach that allows to introduce fuzziness into decision making process in HTA. Specifically, in the paper we (i) define a fuzzy preference relation between health technologies using an axiomatic approach; (ii) link it to the fuzzy willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept notions and show the survey results in Poland eliciting these; (iii) incorportate uncertainty additionally to fuzziness and define two concepts to support decision making: fuzzy expected net benefit and fuzzy expected acceptability (the counterparts of expected net benefit and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, CEACs, often used in HTA). Illustrative examples show that our fuzzy approach may remove some problems with other methods (CEACs possibly being non-monotonic) and better illustrate the amount of uncertainty present in the decision problem. Our framework can be used in other multiple criteria decision problems under risk where trade-off coefficients between criteria are subjectively chosen.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:251:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-1910-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-1910-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-015-1910-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    3. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2010. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 955-963, August.
    4. Mickael Löthgren & Niklas Zethraeus, 2000. "Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 623-630, October.
    5. Weinstein, Milton & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1973. "Critical ratios and efficient allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 147-157, April.
    6. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    7. Moreno, E. & Girón, F.J. & Martínez, M.L. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2013. "Optimal treatments in cost-effectiveness analysis in the presence of covariates: Improving patient subgroup definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 173-182.
    8. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    9. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & NegrI´n, M.A., 2010. "Optimal healthcare decisions: Comparing medical treatments on a cost-effectiveness basis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(1), pages 180-187, July.
    10. Bleichrodt, Han & Wakker, Peter & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs by Risk Neutrality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 107-114, November.
    11. Simon Eckermann & Andrew Willan, 2011. "Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 563-577, July.
    12. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740.
    13. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    14. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    15. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    16. Ben A. Van Hout & Maiwenn J. Al & Gilad S. Gordon & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "Costs, effects and C/E‐ratios alongside a clinical trial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(5), pages 309-319, September.
    17. Garber, Alan M., 2000. "Advances in cost-effectiveness analysis of health interventions," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.),Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 181-221, Elsevier.
    18. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    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. Jose M. Gonzalez-Cava & José Antonio Reboso & José Luis Casteleiro-Roca & José Luis Calvo-Rolle & Juan Albino Méndez Pérez, 2018. "A Novel Fuzzy Algorithm to Introduce New Variables in the Drug Supply Decision-Making Process in Medicine," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-15, February.
    2. Michał Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 51-71, February.

    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:spr:annopr:v:251:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-1910-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.