scholarly journals Evaluating the Presence of Cognitive Biases in Health Care Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Formulary Decision Makers

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 1173-1183
Author(s):  
Dylan J. Mezzio ◽  
Victor B. Nguyen ◽  
Andrew Kiselica ◽  
Ken O’Day
2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110282
Author(s):  
Laura Bojke ◽  
Marta O. Soares ◽  
Karl Claxton ◽  
Abigail Colson ◽  
Aimée Fox ◽  
...  

Background The evidence used to inform health care decision making (HCDM) is typically uncertain. In these situations, the experience of experts is essential to help decision makers reach a decision. Structured expert elicitation (referred to as elicitation) is a quantitative process to capture experts’ beliefs. There is heterogeneity in the existing elicitation methodology used in HCDM, and it is not clear if existing guidelines are appropriate for use in this context. In this article, we seek to establish reference case methods for elicitation to inform HCDM. Methods We collated the methods available for elicitation using reviews and critique. In addition, we conducted controlled experiments to test the accuracy of alternative methods. We determined the suitability of the methods choices for use in HCDM according to a predefined set of principles for elicitation in HCDM, which we have also generated. We determined reference case methods for elicitation in HCDM for health technology assessment (HTA). Results In almost all methods choices available for elicitation, we found a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations. Despite this, it is possible to define reference case methods for HTA. The reference methods include a focus on gathering experts with substantive knowledge of the quantities being elicited as opposed to those trained in probability and statistics, eliciting quantities that the expert might observe directly, and individual elicitation of beliefs, rather than solely consensus methods. It is likely that there are additional considerations for decision makers in health care outside of HTA. Conclusions The reference case developed here allows the use of different methods, depending on the decision-making setting. Further applied examples of elicitation methods would be useful. Experimental evidence comparing methods should be generated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110190
Author(s):  
Ilyas Khan ◽  
Liliane Pintelon ◽  
Harry Martin

Objectives The main objectives of this article are 2-fold. First, we explore the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods in different areas of health care, particularly the adoption of various MCDA methods across health care decision making problems. Second, we report on the publication trends on the application of MCDA methods in health care. Method PubMed was searched for literature from 1960 to 2019 in the English language. A wide range of keywords was used to retrieve relevant studies. The literature search was performed in September 2019. Articles were included only if they have reported an MCDA case in health care. Results and Conclusion The search yielded 8,318 abstracts, of which 158 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for further analysis. Hybrid methods are the most widely used methods in health care decision making problems. When it comes to single methods, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is the most widely used method followed by TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution), multiattribute utility theory, goal programming, EVIDEM (evidence and value: impact on decision making), evidential reasoning, discrete choice experiment, and so on. Interestingly, the usage of hybrid methods has been high in recent years. AHP is most widely applied in screening and diagnosing and followed by treatment, medical devices, resource allocation, and so on. Furthermore, treatment, screening and diagnosing, medical devices, and drug development and assessment got more attention in the MCDA context. It is indicated that the application of MCDA methods to health care decision making problem is determined by the nature and complexity of the health care problem. However, guidelines and tools exist that assist in the selection of an MCDA method.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1182-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Paynter ◽  
Madeline Cruice ◽  
Susan Mathers ◽  
Heidi Gregory ◽  
Adam P. Vogel

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Mittmann

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on science and reaffirmed the value of evidence in health care decision-making. CADTH is a major Canadian publisher of evidence, advice, and recommendations regarding the assessment and management of health technologies. The Canadian Journal of Health Technologies will publish CADTH work in a single, PubMed-indexed, online location, making it easier for our health system partners to search and find CADTH work. Through the Canadian Journal of Health Technologies, CADTH will expand its reach and its collaborations with producers and users of health technology assessments.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elana Jackson

This study explores the perspectives of young people with chronic illness on their participation in health care discussions and decision making, with a specific focus on the role of parents in facilitating participation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 participants between the ages of 5 and 18. Participants were recruited from inpatient units at a pediatric hospital. A range of chronic illnesses were represented among members of the sample, including kidney failure, Crohn’s disease, organ transplant, and sickle cell anemia. Following data collection, a focused analysis was conducted of participants’ statements related to parent involvement in the health care decision making process. Salient themes that emerged from analysis of the data reveal a complex and bidirectional process in which young people and parents negotiate children’s participation in making decisions related to their health care. Based on the findings, a collaborative-contextual model of decision making is proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document