ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019
MCDA-based deliberation to value health states: lessons learned from a pilot study.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Information Entropy and MACBETH Methods in the Replacement Rates of Multicriteria Methods: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Supporting treatment decision-making for patients with multiple myeloma post-DRd in Italy: a multi-criteria decision framework.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- 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
- "It is not a scientific number it is just a feeling": Populating a multi-dimensional end-of-life decision framework using deliberative methods.Health economics · 2021Article
- HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Reasoning in the valuation of health-related quality of life: A qualitative content analysis of deliberations in a pilot study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life.
methodsThe one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis.
resultsA total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process.
conclusionsThis pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH.
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.