Using decision methods to examine the potential impact of intersectoral action programs

Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports

In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of ​​oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports

Abstract In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

Systems thinking in health technology assessment: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess how, and to what extent, a systems-level perspective is considered in decision-making processes for health interventions by illustrating how studies define the boundaries of the system in their analyses and by defining the decision-making context in which a systems-level perspective is undertaken.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and EconLit were searched and key search concepts included decision making, system, and integration. Studies were classified according to an interpretation of the "system" of analysis used in each study based on a four-level model of the health system (patient, care team, organization, and/or policy environment) and using categories (based on intervention type and system impacts considered) to describe the decision-making context.

RESULTS

A total of 2,664 articles were identified and 29 were included for analysis. Most studies (16/29; 55%) considered multiple levels of the health system (i.e., patient, care team, organization, environment) in their analysis and assessed multiple classes of interventions versus a single class of intervention (e.g., pharmaceuticals, screening programs). Approximately half (15/29; 52%) of the studies assessed the influence of policy options on the system as a whole, and the other half assessed the impact of interventions on other phases of the disease pathway or life trajectory (14/29; 48%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that systems thinking is not common in areas where health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically conducted. Against this background, our study demonstrates the need for future conceptualizations and interpretations of systems thinking in HTA.