ArticleBMJ open2019
Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness calculators for health, well-being and safety promotion: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Engaging health system, service and consumer representatives in the co-design of a multi-criteria decision-making framework for commissioning overweight and obesity programs and services.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Value contribution of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Catalonia using a multicriteria decision analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- The value of the reflective discussion in decision-making using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): an example of determining the value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of the Epstein Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBVOrphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- A decision-support tool for funding health innovations at a tertiary academic medical center.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
- Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions.Point of care · 2020Article
- Application of a Mixed Methods Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework in Integrated Health Care.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth administration is complex and serves many masters. Value, quality, infrastructure and reimbursement are just a sample of the competing interests influencing executive decision-making. This creates a need for decision processes that are rational and holistic.
methodsWe created a multicriteria decision analysis tool to evaluate six fields of healthcare provision: return on investment, capacity, outcomes, safety, training and risk. The tool was designed for prospective use, at the beginning of each funding round for competing projects. Administrators were asked to rank their criteria in order of preference. Each field was assigned a representative weight determined from the rankings. Project data were then entered into the tool for each of the six fields. The score for each field was scaled as a proportion of the highest scoring project, then weighted by preference. We then plotted findings on a cost-effectiveness plane. The project was piloted and developed over successive uses by the hospital's executive board.
resultsTwelve projects competing for funding at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital were scored by the tool. It created a priority ranking for each initiative based on the weights assigned to each field by the executive board. Projects were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane with score as the x-axis and cost of implementation as the y-axis. Projects to the bottom right were considered dominant over projects above and to the left, indicating that they provided greater benefit at a lower cost. Projects below the x-axis were cost-saving and recommended provided they did not harm patients. All remaining projects above the x-axis were then recommended in order of lowest to highest cost-per-point scored.
conclusionThis tool provides a transparent, objective method of decision analysis using accessible software. It would serve health services delivery organisations that seek to achieve value in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.