↓ Skip to main content

Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin Marsh, J. Jaime Caro, Alaa Hamed, Erica Zaiser

Abstract

Qualitative methods tend to be used to incorporate patient preferences into healthcare decision making. However, for patient preferences to be given adequate consideration by decision makers they need to be quantified. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is one way to quantify and capture the patient voice. The objective of this review was to report on existing MCDAs involving patients to support the future use of MCDA to capture the patient voice. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in June 2014 for English-language papers with no date restriction. The following search terms were used: 'multi-criteria decision*', 'multiple criteria decision*', 'MCDA', 'benefit risk assessment*', 'risk benefit assessment*', 'multicriteri* decision*', 'MCDM', 'multi-criteri* decision*'. Abstracts were included if they reported the application of MCDA to assess healthcare interventions where patients were the source of weights. Abstracts were excluded if they did not apply MCDA, such as discussions of how MCDA could be used; or did not evaluate healthcare interventions, such as MCDAs to assess the level of health need in a locality. Data were extracted on weighting method, variation in patient and expert preferences, and discussion on different weighting techniques. The review identified ten English-language studies that reported an MCDA to assess healthcare interventions and involved patients as a source of weights. These studies reported 12 applications of MCDA. Different methods of preference elicitation were employed: direct weighting in workshops; discrete choice experiment surveys; and the analytical hierarchy process using both workshops and surveys. There was significant heterogeneity in patient responses and differences between patients, who put greater weight on disease characteristics and treatment convenience, and experts, who put more weight on efficacy. The studies highlighted cognitive challenges associated with some weighting methods, though patients' views on their ability to undertake weighting tasks was positive. This review identified several recent examples of MCDA used to elicit patient preferences, which support the feasibility of using MCDA to capture the patient voice. Challenges identified included, how best to reflect the heterogeneity of patient preferences in decision making and how to manage the cognitive burden associated with some MCDA tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Decision Sciences 4 4%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,443,044
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#282
of 841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,569
of 420,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.