Skip to main content

Abstract

Decision-makers in the healthcare sector face a global challenge of developing robust, evidence-based methods for making decisions about whether to fund, cover, or reimburse medical technologies. Allocating scarce resources across technologies is difficult because a range of criteria are relevant to a healthcare decision, including the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of the technology; the incidence, prevalence, and severity of the disease; the affected population group; the availability of alternative technologies; and the quality of the available evidence. When comparing healthcare technologies, decision-makers often need to make trade-offs between these criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a tool that helps decision-makers summarize complex value trade-offs in a way that is consistent and transparent. It is comprised of a set of techniques that bring about an ordering of alternative decisions from most to least preferred, where each technology is ranked based on the extent to which it creates value through achieving a set of policy objectives. The purpose of this chapter was to provide a brief overview of the theoretical foundations of MCDA. We reviewed theories related to problem structuring and model building. We found problem structuring aimed to qualitatively determine policy objectives and the relevant criteria of value that affect decision-making. Model building theories sought to construct consistent representations of decision-makers’ preferences and value trade-offs through value measurement models (multi-attribute value theory, multi-attribute utility theory, and the analytical hierarchy process), outranking (ELECTRE), and reference (weighted and lexicographic goal programming) models. We conclude that MCDA theory has largely been developed in other fields, and there is a need to develop MCDA theory that is adapted to the healthcare context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackoff RL (1979a) Future of operational-research is past. J Oper Res Soc 30(2):93–104. doi:10.2307/3009290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1979b) Resurrecting the future of operational-research. J Oper Res Soc 30(3):189–199. doi:10.2307/3009600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein SR (1969) Ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltussen R, Niessen L (2006) Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E 4:14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M (2006) Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ 15(7):689–696. doi:10.1002/hec.1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2010) Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In: Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, vol 142, International series in operations research & management science. Springer, New York, p xvi, 412 p

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Mareschal B (1994) The Promcalc and Gaia decision-support system for multicriteria decision aid. Decis Support Syst 12(4–5):297–310. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)90048-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organization method – (the Promethee method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manag Sci 31(6):647–656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer C (1995) Individual decision making. In: Kagel J, Roth A (ed) The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. J. Wiley, Chichester/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin N, Sussex J (2011) Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. Office of Health Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaby V, Goeree R (2014) How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(1):81–99. doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.859525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra T (2011) On the extraction of weight from pairwise comparison matrices. CEJOR 21(1):103–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan JG (2010) Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient 3(4):229–248. doi:10.2165/11539470-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond M (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn, Oxford medical publications. Oxford University Press, Oxford England/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrgott M, Figueira J, Greco S (2010) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, vol 142, International series in operations research & management science. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis : state of the art surveys. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D (2008) Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 8:270. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P, Wright G (2010) Decision analysis for management judgment, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester PT, Adams KM (2014) Problems and messes. 26:23–34. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07629-4_2

  • Ignizo J (1978) A review of goal programming: a tool for multiobjective analysis. J Oper Res Soc 29:1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ijiri Y (1965) Management goals and accounting for control. Studies in mathematical and managerial economics, vol 3. North Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice – mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Mcdaniels TL (1992) Value-focused thinking about strategic decisions at Bc Hydro. Interfaces 22(6):94–109. doi:10.1287/Inte.22.6.94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives : preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball AW (1957) Errors of the 3rd kind in statistical consulting. J Am Stat Assoc 52(278):133–142. doi:10.2307/2280840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak NK, Schniederjans MJ (1982) An alternative method for solving goal programming-problems – a reply. J Oper Res Soc 33(9):859–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster KJ (1966) New approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2):132–157. doi:10.1086/259131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean S, Burgess MM (2010) In the public interest: assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks. Public Underst Sci 19(4):486–496. doi:10.1177/0963662509335410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirkin BG, Fishburn PC (1979) Group choice. Scripta series in mathematics. V. H. Winston; distributed by Halsted Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2015) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal 35(7):1230–1251. doi:10.1111/risa.12360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NICE (2008) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisals. National Institute of Clinical Excellence, London, England

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM (2012) Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med 75(9):1604–1611. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C (2009) Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy 92(2–3):124–132. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD (1984) A theory of requisite decision-models. Acta Psychol 56(1–3):29–48. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(84)90005-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups – theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):533–549. doi:10.1057/Jors.1993.96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin M (1998) Psychology and economics. J Econ Lit 36(1):11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A (2010) Pharmacoeconomics: NICE’s approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol 70(3):346–349. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03589.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Regier DA, Bentley C, Mitton C, Bryan S, Burgess MM, Chesney E, Coldman A, Gibson J, Hoch J, Rahman S, Sabharwal M, Sawka C, Schuckel V, Peacock SJ (2014a) Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. Soc Sci Med 122:130–139. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regier DA, Watson V, Burnett H, Ungar WJ (2014b) Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: an application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Behav Exp Econ 50:40–49. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2014.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifai AK (1996) A note on the structure of the goal-programming model: assessment and evaluation. Int J Oper Prod Manag 16(1):40. doi:10.1108/01443579610106355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25(1):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theor Decis 31(1):49–73. doi:10.1007/Bf00134132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1996) Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding, vol 12, Nonconvex optimization and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Co, New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 32(7):841–855. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, vol 6, 1st edn, Analytic hierarchy process series. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoner B, Choo E, Wedley W (1999) Comment on ‘Rethinking value elicitation for personal consequential decision’ by G wright and P goodwin. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 8:24–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1976) Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, 3dth edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (2010) A behavioral model of rational choice. Compet Policy Int 6(1):241–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamiz M, Jones D, Romero C (1998) Goal programming for decision making: an overview of the current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res 111(3):569–581. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00317-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamiz M, Jones DE, Eldarzi E (1995) A review of goal programming and its applications. Ann Oper Res 58:39–53. doi:10.1007/Bf02032309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thokala P, Duenas A (2012) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health : J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 15(8):1172–1181. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior, 3dth edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC) is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (ARCC is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #2015-703549). Dr. Stuart Peacock is supported by the Leslie Diamond Chair in Cancer Survivorship, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean A. Regier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Regier, D.A., Peacock, S. (2017). Theoretical Foundations of MCDA. In: Marsh, K., Goetghebeur, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R. (eds) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47538-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47540-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics