IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p7823-d434769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi–Criteria–Decision–Analysis (MCDA) for the Horizon Scanning of Health Innovations an Application to COVID 19 Emergency

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Ruggeri

    (National Centre for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy
    School of Medicine, St. Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, 00131 Rome, Italy)

  • Chiara Cadeddu

    (Department of Public Health, Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Paolo Roazzi

    (National Centre for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Donatella Mandolini

    (National Centre for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Mauro Grigioni

    (National Centre for Innovative Technologies, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Marco Marchetti

    (National Centre for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Aim: In this article, we aim to present a tool for the early assessment of medical technologies. This evaluation system was designed and implemented by the National Centre for HTA and the National Centre for Innovative Technologies of the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Italy, in order to respond to an institutional commitment within the “Health Technologies Assessment Team” that was established to face the huge demand for the evaluation of Health Technologies during the pandemic event caused by COVID-19, with a smart and easy-to-use framework. Methods: Horizon scanning was conducted through a brief assessment carried out according to the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. Each HTA domain was attributed a score according to a pros/cons and opportunities/threats system, derived from evidence in the literature. Scores were weighted according to different perspectives. Scores were presented in a Cartesian graph showing the positioning according to the potential value and the perceived risk associated with the technology. Results: Two case studies regarding the early assessment were reported, concerning two specific technologies: an individual protection device and a contact tracking system.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Ruggeri & Chiara Cadeddu & Paolo Roazzi & Donatella Mandolini & Mauro Grigioni & Marco Marchetti, 2020. "Multi–Criteria–Decision–Analysis (MCDA) for the Horizon Scanning of Health Innovations an Application to COVID 19 Emergency," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7823-:d:434769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7823/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7823/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2005. "Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 703-714, July.
    3. Benjamin Johns & Rob Baltussen, 2004. "Accounting for the cost of scaling‐up health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(11), pages 1117-1124, November.
    4. Ham, Chris, 1997. "Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 49-66, October.
    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. Robin L. Dillon & Vicki M. Bier & Richard Sheffield John & Abdullah Althenayyan, 2023. "Closing the Gap Between Decision Analysis and Policy Analysts Before the Next Pandemic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 109-132, June.
    2. Roberto Latina & Katia Salomone & Daniela D’Angelo & Daniela Coclite & Greta Castellini & Silvia Gianola & Alice Fauci & Antonello Napoletano & Laura Iacorossi & Primiano Iannone, 2020. "Towards a New System for the Assessment of the Quality in Care Pathways: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Filomena Pietrantonio & Francesco Rosiello & Elena Alessi & Matteo Pascucci & Marianna Rainone & Enrica Cipriano & Alessandra Di Berardino & Antonio Vinci & Matteo Ruggeri & Serafino Ricci, 2021. "Burden of COVID-19 on Italian Internal Medicine Wards: Delphi, SWOT, and Performance Analysis after Two Pandemic Waves in the Local Health Authority “Roma 6” Hospital Structures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, June.

    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. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    3. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    4. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    5. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    7. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    8. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2018. "Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end of life? A revisit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 71-75, January.
    9. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    10. Anderson, Pippa & Webb, Philip & Groves, Sam, 2017. "Prioritisation of specialist health care services; not NICE, not easy but it can be done," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 978-985.
    11. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    13. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    14. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    15. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    18. Samuel G Schumacher & Hojoon Sohn & Zhi Zhen Qin & Genevieve Gore & J Lucian Davis & Claudia M Denkinger & Madhukar Pai, 2016. "Impact of Molecular Diagnostics for Tuberculosis on Patient-Important Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Study Methodologies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Kang, Minah & Reich, Michael R., 2014. "Between credit claiming and blame avoidance: The changing politics of priority-setting for Korea's National Health Insurance System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 9-17.
    20. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.

    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:21:p:7823-:d:434769. 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.