IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurjdp/v4y2016i3d10.1007_s40070-016-0059-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Reddy

    (ScHARR, University of Sheffield)

  • Praveen Thokala

    (ScHARR, University of Sheffield)

  • Alison Iliff

    (Public Health England)

  • Kerry Warhurst

    (NHS England-North (Yorkshire and Humber))

  • Helen Chambers

    (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council)

  • Lynsey Bowker

    (Yorkshire and Humber Academic Health Science Network)

  • Stephen J. Walters

    (ScHARR, University of Sheffield)

  • Alejandra Duenas

    (IÉSEG School of Management)

  • Michael P. Kelly

    (Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge)

Abstract

Smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable death in the Uited Kingdom (UK) and is a major cause of coronary heart disease, some cancers, and respiratory disease, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. At the time of initiating the project, smoking prevalence had not changed across four local government areas in South Yorkshire for some years. Most spending had been focussed on helping people quit, an intervention where there was clear evidence of effectiveness. A number of changes occurred in public health structures and targets, requiring a reappraisal of the range of interventions offered. This was challenging due to a lack of clear evidence for some of the areas’ alternative interventions. The aim of this paper is to describe the use of a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to support the health priority setting in local authorities to reduce smoking prevalence. There were three phases to this process: (1) problem structuring; (2) the multiple criteria decision analysis; (3) and using the MCDA results to influence decision making at the local government level. The MCDA approach was used to collate information in a consistent and transparent manner, using expert, stakeholder and public opinion to fill known gaps in evidence. Fifteen interventions (such as stop smoking support services, smoke-free spaces, communication and marketing exercises, and increased investment in enforcement) were ranked across eight criteria (relating to reductions in prevalence across relevant groups, as well as aspects relating to equity and feasibility), allowing a range of relevant concerns to be incorporated. Subsequent steps were taken to translate the results of this stage into workable policy options. The results differed significantly from current practice. Sensitivity analysis showed that the findings were robust to changes in preference weights. These results informed subsequent changes to the interventions offered across the four boroughs. The ability of MCDA techniques to incorporate data and both qualitative and quantitative judgements in a formal manner mean that they are well suited to support public health decision making, where evidence is often only partially available and many policies are value driven. MCDA methods, if used, should be chosen carefully based on their resource/time constraints, scientific validity, and the significance and broader context of the decision problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Reddy & Praveen Thokala & Alison Iliff & Kerry Warhurst & Helen Chambers & Lynsey Bowker & Stephen J. Walters & Alejandra Duenas & Michael P. Kelly, 2016. "Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 161-181, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:4:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-016-0059-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40070-016-0059-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40070-016-0059-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40070-016-0059-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soma, Katrine, 2003. "How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management--a country case study in Trinidad and Tobago," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 47-58, January.
    2. Mitton, Craig R. & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 335-348, June.
    3. Wilson, Hamish & Scott, Sheila, 1995. "PBMA--its role in the future purchasing arrangements for health care services," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 157-160, August.
    4. Kevin Marsh & Tereza Lanitis & David Neasham & Panagiotis Orfanos & Jaime Caro, 2014. "Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 345-365, April.
    5. Madden, Lynne & Hussey, Ruth & Mooney, Gavin & Church, Elaine, 1995. "Public health and economics in tandem: programme budgeting, marginal analysis and priority setting in practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 161-168, August.
    6. Donaldson, Cam, 1995. "Economics, public health and health care purchasing: reinventing the wheel?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 79-90, August.
    7. Haas, Marion & Viney, Rosalie & Kristensen, Elizabeth & Pain, Charles & Foulds, Kim, 2001. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis to assist population based strategic planning for coronary heart disease," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 173-186, March.
    8. Bohmer, Paul & Pain, Charles & Watt, Alex & Abernethy, Paul & Sceats, Janet, 2001. "Maximising health gain within available resources in the New Zealand public health system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 37-50, January.
    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. Alec Morton & Marion Rauner & Greg Zaric, 2016. "Introduction to the special issue," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 157-159, November.

    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. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    2. Mitton, Craig R. & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 335-348, June.
    3. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    4. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    5. Haas, Marion & Viney, Rosalie & Kristensen, Elizabeth & Pain, Charles & Foulds, Kim, 2001. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis to assist population based strategic planning for coronary heart disease," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 173-186, March.
    6. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, R. Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 266-274.
    8. Ching-Min Yang, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perspectives for Taking Action to Prevent Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in Gillnet Fisheries, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Michael E. Otim & Augustine D. Asante & Margaret Kelaher & Ian P. Anderson & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Acceptability of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a tool for routine priority setting in Indigenous health," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 277-295, July.
    10. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    11. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    12. Madden, Lynne & Hussey, Ruth & Mooney, Gavin & Church, Elaine, 1995. "Public health and economics in tandem: programme budgeting, marginal analysis and priority setting in practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 161-168, August.
    13. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    14. Jinxia Zhu & Qian Xu & Yi Pan & Lefeng Qiu & Yi Peng & Haijun Bao, 2018. "Land-Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) Conflicts: A Perspective of Spatial Injustice of Urban Public Resources Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Hipgrave, David B. & Alderman, Katarzyna Bolsewicz & Anderson, Ian & Soto, Eliana Jimenez, 2014. "Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 190-200.
    16. García-Armesto, Sandra & Campillo-Artero, Carlos & Bernal-Delgado, Enrique, 2013. "Disinvestment in the age of cost-cutting sound and fury. Tools for the Spanish National Health System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 180-185.
    17. Brayan V. Seixas & François Dionne & Craig Mitton, 2021. "Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Saavedra-Díaz, Lina M. & Rosenberg, Andrew A. & Martín-López, Berta, 2015. "Social perceptions of Colombian small-scale marine fisheries conflicts: Insights for management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 61-70.
    20. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.

    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:eurjdp:v:4:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-016-0059-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.