↓ Skip to main content

A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0251-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henk Broekhuizen, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Janine A. van Til, J. Marjan Hummel, Maarten J. IJzerman

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used to support decisions in healthcare involving multiple and conflicting criteria. Although uncertainty is usually carefully addressed in health economic evaluations, whether and how the different sources of uncertainty are dealt with and with what methods in MCDA is less known. The objective of this study is to review how uncertainty can be explicitly taken into account in MCDA and to discuss which approach may be appropriate for healthcare decision makers. A literature review was conducted in the Scopus and PubMed databases. Two reviewers independently categorized studies according to research areas, the type of MCDA used, and the approach used to quantify uncertainty. Selected full text articles were read for methodological details. The search strategy identified 569 studies. The five approaches most identified were fuzzy set theory (45 % of studies), probabilistic sensitivity analysis (15 %), deterministic sensitivity analysis (31 %), Bayesian framework (6 %), and grey theory (3 %). A large number of papers considered the analytic hierarchy process in combination with fuzzy set theory (31 %). Only 3 % of studies were published in healthcare-related journals. In conclusion, our review identified five different approaches to take uncertainty into account in MCDA. The deterministic approach is most likely sufficient for most healthcare policy decisions because of its low complexity and straightforward implementation. However, more complex approaches may be needed when multiple sources of uncertainty must be considered simultaneously.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 243 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 17%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Other 15 6%
Other 47 19%
Unknown 54 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 42 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 13%
Computer Science 20 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Other 65 26%
Unknown 61 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#12,618,597
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,302
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,685
of 353,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,560 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.