Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041653›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2018

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, Fenna Leijten, Maaike Hoedemakers, Apostolos Tsiachristas, Nick Verbeek, Milad Karimi, Roland Bal, Antoinette de Bont, Kamrul Islam, Jan Erik Askildsen and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Heterogeneity in preferences for outcomes of integrated care for persons with multiple chronic diseases: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Maureen Rutten-van MölkenSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. m.rutten@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8706-3159
Fenna LeijtenSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maaike HoedemakersSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Apostolos TsiachristasSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Nick VerbeekSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Milad KarimiSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Roland BalSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Antoinette de BontSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Kamrul IslamDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Jan Erik AskildsenDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Thomas CzypionkaInstitute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria.
Markus KrausInstitute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria.
Mirjana HuicAgency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare, Zagreb, Croatia.
János György PitterSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Verena VogtDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jonathan StokesManchester Centre for Health Economics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Erik BaltaxeInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
SELFIE consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). METHODS AND

resultsThis paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in the 4-year, EU-funded SELFIE project. In step one, qualitative research was undertaken to better understand the decision-context of these programmes. The programmes faced decisions related to their sustainability in terms of reimbursement, continuation, extension, and/or wider implementation. In step two, a uniform set of decision criteria was defined in terms of outcomes measured across the 17 programmes: physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care, and total health and social care costs. These were supplemented by programme-type specific outcomes. Step three presents the quasi-experimental studies designed to measure the performance of the programmes on the decision criteria. Step four gives details of the methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, Swing Weighting) to determine the relative importance of the decision criteria among five stakeholder groups per country. An example in step five illustrates the value-based method of MCDA by which the performance of the programmes on each decision criterion is combined with the weight of the respective criterion to derive an overall value score. Step six describes how we deal with uncertainty and introduces the Conditional Multi-Attribute Acceptability Curve. Step seven addresses the interpretation of results in stakeholder workshops. DISCUSSION: By discussing our solutions to the challenges involved in creating a uniform MCDA approach for the evaluation of different programmes, this paper provides guidance to future evaluations and stimulates debate on how to evaluate integrated care for multi-morbidity.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMultiple Chronic ConditionsProgram EvaluationUncertaintyCostEconomic evaluationIntegrated careMulti-criteria decision analysisMulti-morbidityOutcomesTriple aim

Identifiers

PMID30041653
PMCPMC6057041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.