Yıl 2020, Cilt 8 , Sayı 1, Sayfalar 264 - 289 2020-01-31

A Review on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches to Health Technology Assessment
Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması

Melis Almula KARADAYI [1] , Beyza Özlem YILMAZ [2] , Bilgehan Eren EROL [3] , Hakan TOZAN [4]


Drugs, medical treatment procedures, medical devices, surgical techniques and health systems in the healthcare field are in the scope of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). HTA is becoming a popular method to evaluate these health technologies by considering determined target and criteria. Limited resources and increasing costs in the healthcare field have prompted healthcare decision-makers to make effective, reliable and rational decisions and raised the interest on HTA. In this context, the importance of HTA has increased and its scope has expanded to include multiple criteria and stakeholders. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) plays an important role in selecting the best alternative from a set of available alternatives with respect to multiple criteria. Developments in the healthcare field, widespread utilization of optimization and evidence-based medicine studies are increasing the interest in utilization of MCDM methods in HTA studies day by day. In this study, HTA studies and HTA studies integrated with MCDM methods are reviewed and classified in a comprehensive manner. As a result of this review study, it is observed that utilization of MCDM methods in HTA studies has increased rapidly after 2008. In addition, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DecisionMaking) and weighted product method are found to be the most commonly used MCDM techniques.

Sağlık sektöründe yer alan ilaçlar, tıbbi tedavi prosedürleri, tıbbı cihazlar, cerrahi teknikler ve sağlık sistemleri Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme (STD) kapsamında değerlendirilmektedir. Bu tip sağlık teknolojilerinin çeşitli yönlerden ele alınarak belirlenen kriterler ve istenen hedef doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesinde STD gittikçe popülerleşen bir yöntemdir. Sağlık sektöründe kaynakların kısıtlı olması ve maliyetlerin son yıllarda artış göstermesi, bu sektördeki karar vericileri etkili, güvenilir ve rasyonel adımlar atmaya itmiş ve STD’ye olan ilgiyi artırmıştır. STD’ye olan ilginin artmasıyla beraber kapsamı da çok kriterli ve paydaşlı olacak şekilde genişlemiştir. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri birden fazla kriter altında alternatifler arasından en iyi alternatifin seçilmesinde önemli rol oynar. Sağlık sektöründe yaşanan gelişmeler, sağlıkta eniyileme ve kanıta dayalı tıp uygulamalarının yaygınlaşması STD çalışmalarında ÇKKV yöntemlerine olan ilgiyi her geçen gün artırmaktadır. Bu derleme çalışmasında, literatürde son 10 yılda yapılan STD çalışmaları ve ÇKKV yaklaşımlarıyla yapılan STD çalışmaları kapsamlı bir biçimde özetlenmiş ve sınıflandırılmıştır. Ayrıca derleme çalışmasının sonucunda, STD çalışmalarında ÇKKV yöntemlerinin kullanımının 2008 yılından sonra hızlı bir şekilde arttığı gözlemlenmiştir. En sık kullanılan ÇKKV yöntemlerinin ise AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi), EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DecisionMaking) ve ağırlıklı çarpım olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

  • [1] World Health Organization, Health Technology Assessment, (31 July 2019). [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en/
  • [2] Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme Daire Başkanlığı, (31 Temmuz 2019). STD/HTA Nedir?. [Online]. Erişim: http://www.hta.gov.tr/std_hta.aspx
  • [3] G. Improta, M.A. Russo, M. Triassi, G. Converso, T. Murino and L.C. Santillo, “Use of the AHP Methodology in System Dynamics: Modelling and Simulation for Health Technology Assessments to Determine the Correct Prosthesis Choice for Hernia Diseases,” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 299, pp. 19-27, 2018.
  • [4] G. Ağaç ve B. Baki, “Sağlık Alanında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri Kullanımı: Literatür İncelemesi,” Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, c. 19, s. 3, ss. 291-300, 2016.
  • [5] N. Öztürk, “Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Health Technology Assessment and an Application in Dialysis,” Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Engineering Management, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2017.
  • [6] A. Yiğit ve R. Erdem “Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme: Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve,” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, c. 23, s. 1, ss. 215-249, 2016.
  • [7] D. Banta, “The Development of Health Technology Assessment,” Health Policy, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 121-132, 2003.
  • [8] International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, (31 July 2019). [Online]. Erişim: https://htai.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/StratPlan_2016_10_04-1.pdf
  • [9] Health Technology Assessment International, (31 July 2019). [Online]. Available: http://www.inahta.org/about-inahta/
  • [10] M.V. Garrido, F.B. Kristensen, C.P. Nielsen and R. Busse, Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy‑making in Europe, 1. printing, Copenhagen, Denmark: The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2008, Chapter 1, pp. 11.
  • [11] European Network for Health Technology Assessment, (31 July 2019). [Online]. Available: https://www.eunethta.eu/
  • [12] R. Akdağ, (31 Temmuz 2019) Türkiye Sağlıkta Dönüşüm Programı Değerlendirme Raporu (2003-2011). Sağlık Bakanlığı. [Online]. Erişim: https://sbu.saglik.gov.tr/Ekutuphane/kitaplar/SDPturk.pdf
  • [13] Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme Daire Başkanlığı, (31 Temmuz 2019). [Online]. Erişim: http://www.hta.gov.tr/Default.aspx
  • [14] R. Kahveci, E.M. Koç, E.Ö. Küçük “Health Technology Assessment in Turkey,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 235-240, 2017.
  • [15] N. Ramacciati, “Health Technology Assessment in Nursing: A Literature Review,” International Nursing Review, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 23-30, 2013.
  • [16] M.P. Gagnon, M. Desmartis, T. Poder and W. Witteman, “Effects and Repercussions of Local/Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Systematic Review,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 3, no. 129, 2014.
  • [17] B.J. Lahue, E. Baginska and S.S. Li, “Health Technology Assessment On Cervıcal Cancer Screening, 2000–2014,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 171-180, 2015.
  • [18] M.J. Ijzerman, H. Koffijberg, E. Fenwick and M. Krahn, “Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature,” PharmacoEconomics, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 727-740, 2017.
  • [19] M.R. Moshi, R. Tooher and T. Merlin, “Suitability Of Current Evaluation Frameworks For Use In The Health Technology Assessment Of Mobile Medical Applications: A Systematic Review,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 464-475, 2018.
  • [20] R. Lucchini, A. Sanguinetti, M. Monacelli, R. Triola, S. Avenia, C. Conti, S. Santoprete and N. Avenia, “Health Technology Assessment and Thyroid Surgery,” Il Giornale Di Chirurgia, vol. 34, no. 7/8, pp. 198-201, 2013.
  • [21] R. Lucchini, A. Sanguinetti, M. Monacelli, R. Triola, S. Avenia, C. Conti, S. Santoprete and N. Avenia, “Health Technology Assessment and Thyroid Surgery,” Il Giornale Di Chirurgia, vol. 34, no. 7/8, pp. 198-201, 2013.
  • [21] R. Steadman, R.P. Myers, L. Leggett, D. Lorezonzetti, T. Noseworthyi S. Rose, L. Sutherland and F. Clement, “A Health Technology Assessment of Transient Elastography in Adult Liver Disease,” Can J Gastroenterol, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 149-158, 2013.
  • [22] D. Giansanti, M. Pochini and M.R. Giovagnoli, “Integration of Tablet Technologies in the e-Laboratory of Cytology: A Health Technology Assessment,” Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 909-915, 2014.
  • [23] G. Mauri, E. Porazzi, L. Cova, U. Restelli, T. Tondolo, M. Bonfanti, A. Cerri, T. Ierace, D Croce and L. Solbiati, “Intraprocedural Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) İn Liver Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation: Clinical Impact And Health Technology Assessment,” Insights into Imaging, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 209-216, 2014.
  • [24] A. Mahboub-Ahari, S. Hajebrahimi, M. Yusefi and A. Velayati, “EOS Imaging Versus Current Radiography: A Health Technology Assessment Study,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 331, 2015.
  • [25] J. Arabloo, P. Hamouzadeh, S.M. Mousavinezhad, M. Mobinizadeh, A. Olyeemanesh and M. Pooyandjoo, “Health Technology Assessment of Image-Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT): A Systematic Review of Current Evidence,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 30, pp. 318, 2016.
  • [26] F.M. Knuttel, S.E.M. Huijsse, T.L. Feenstra, C.T.W. Moonen, M. A. A. J. van den Bosch, E. Buskens, M.J.W. Greuter and G.H. de Bock, “Early Health Technology Assessment Of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation For The Treatment Of Early-Stage Breast Cancer,” Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, vol. 5, no. 23, 2017.
  • [27] P. Diel, W. Reuss, E. Aghayev, P. Moulin and C. Röder, “Swıssspine-A Nationwide Health Technology Assessment Registry For Balloon Kyphoplasty: Methodology And First Results,” The Spine Journal, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 961-971, 2010.
  • [28] S.I. Saarni, H. Anttila, S.E. Saarni, P. Mustajoki, V. Koivukangas, T.S. Ikonen and A. Malmivaara, “Ethical Issues Of Obesity Surgery—A Health Technology Assessment,” Obesity Surgery, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1469-1476, 2011.
  • [29] A. Damonti, L. Ferrario, P. Morelli, M. Mussi, C. Patregnani, E. Garagiola, E. Foglia, R. Pagani, R. Carminati and E. Porazzi, “A Health Technology Assessment: Laparoscopy Versus Colpoceliotomy,” Journal of Preventine Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. E155–E161, 2015.
  • [30] G. Turchetti, F. Pierotti, I. Palla, S. Manetti, C. Freschi, V. Ferrari and A. Cuschieri, “Comparative Health Technology Assessment of Robotic-Assisted, Direct Manual Laparoscopic and Open Surgery: A Prospective Study,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 543-551, 2015.
  • [31] F. Frosini, R. Miniati, S. Grillone, F. Dori, G.B. Gentili and A. Belardinelli, “Integrated HTA-FMEA/FMECA Methodology for the Evaluation of Robotic System in Urology and General Surgery,” Technology and Health Care, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 873-887, 2016.
  • [32] K. Wallner, R.G. Pedroza, I. Awotwe, J.M. Piret, P.A. Senior, A.M.J. Shapiro and C. McCabe, “Stem Cells And Beta Cell Replacement Therapy: A Prospective Health Technology Assessment Study,” BMC Endocrine Disorders, vol. 18, no. 6, 2018.
  • [33] G. La Torre, C. de Waure, G. Chiaradia, A. Manocci, S. Capri and W. Ricciardi, “The Health Technology Assessment of bivalent HPV vaccine Cervarix® in Italy,” Vaccine, vol. 28, no. 19, pp. 3379-3384, 2010.
  • [34] F. Andersohn, R. Bornemann, O. Damm, M. Frank, T. Mittendorf and U. Theidel, “Vacination of Children With a Live-Attenuated, Intranasal Influenza Vaccine – Analysis and Evaluation Through a Health Technology Assessment,” GMS Health Technology Assessment, vol. 10, no. 3, 2014.
  • [35] C. de Waure, M.L. Specchia, C. Cadeddu, S. Capizzi, S. Capri, M.L. Di Pietro, M.A. Veneziano, M.R. Gualano, F. Kheiraoui, G. La Torre, N. Nicolotti, A. Sferrazza and W. Ricciardi, “The Prevention of Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Fractures: Results of the Health Technology Assessment of a New Antiosteoporotic Drug,” Biomed Research International, vol. 2014, no. 975927, 2014.
  • [36] G. Singh, S. Patrikar, D.R. Basannar and V.K. Bhatti, “Health Technology Assessment of Fixed-Dose Combination Regimen in Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Smear-Positive Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Meta-Analysis,” Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 2013.
  • [37] E.T. Kinter, A. Schmeding, I. Rudolph, S. dosReis and J.F.P. Bridges, “Identifying Patient-Relevant Endpoints Among Individuals With Schizophrenia: An Application of Patient-Centered Health Technology Assessment,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 35-41, 2009.
  • [38] T. C. Jansen, J. Van Bommel, and J. Bakker, “Blood Lactate Monitoring İn Critically İll Patients: A Systematic Health Technology Assessment,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 37, no. 10. pp. 2827–2839, 2009. [39] F. Izquierdo, J. Gracia, M. Guerra, J. A. Blasco, and E. Andradas, “Health Technology Assessment-Based Development Of A Spanish Breast Cancer Patient Decision Aid,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 363–368, 2011. [40] B. Buchberger, M. Follmann, D. Freyer, H. Huppertz, A. Ehm, and J. Wasem, “The Evidence For The Use Of Growth Factors And Active Skin Substitutes For The Treatment Of Non-Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU): A Health Technology Assessment (HTA),” Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology and Diabetes, vol. 119, no. 8. pp. 472–479, Sep-2011. [41] E. Berntorp, J. Astermark, F. Baghaei, D. Bergqvist, M. Holmstrom, B. Ljungberg, A. Norlund, J. Palmblad, P. Petrini, L. Stigendal and J. Sawe, “Treatment Of Haemophilia A And B And Von Willebrand’s Disease: Summary And Conclusions Of A Systematic Review As Part Of A Swedish Health-Technology Assessment,” Haemophilia, vol. 18, no. 2. pp. 158–165, 2012.
  • [42] G. Ronco, M. Confortini, V. Maccallini, C. Naldoni, N. Segnan, M. Sideri, M. Zappa, M. Zorzi, M. Calvia and P.G. Rossi, “Health Technology Assessment Report. Use Of Liquid-Based Cytology For Cervical Cancer Precursors Screening,” Epidemiologia e Prevenzione, vol. 36, no. 5 Suppl 2, pp. E1-E33, 2009.
  • [43] L. Sampietro-Colom, I. Morilla-Bachs, S. Gutierrez-Moreno, and P. Gallo, “Development And Test of a Decision Support Tool For Hospital Health Technology Assessment,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 460–465, 2012.
  • [44] M. Hiligsmann, J.A. Kanis, J. Compston, C. Cooper, B. Flamion, P. Bergmann, J-J. Body, S. Boonen, O. Bruyere, J-P. Devogelaer, S. Goemaere, J-M. Kaufman, S. Rozenberg and J-Y. Reginster, “Health Technology Assessment in Osteoporosis,” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 93, no. 1. pp. 1–14, 2013.
  • [45] S. Yazdani, M. P. Jadidfard, B. Tahani, A. Kazemian, O. Dianat, and L. A. Marvasti, “Health Technology Assessment of CEM Pulpotomy in Permanent Molars With Irreversible Pulpitis,” Iranian Endodontic Journal, vol. 9, no. 1. pp. 23–29, 2013.
  • [46] G. Norman, A. Llewellyn, M. Harden, A. Coatesworth, D. Kimberling, A. Schilder and C. McDaid, “Systematic Review of The Limited Evidence Base For Treatments of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction: A Health Technology Assessment,” Clinical Otolaryngology, vol. 39, no. 1. pp. 6–21, 2014.
  • [47] M. L. Specchia, C. de Waure, M.R. Gualano, A. Doria, G. Turchetti, L. Pippo, F.D. Nardo, S. Capizzi, C. Cadeddu, F. Kheiraoui, L. Iaccarino, F. Pierotti, I. Palla, M.A. Veneziano, D. Gliubizzi, A. Sferrazza, N. Nicolotti, R. Porcasi, G.L. Torre, M.L.D. Pietro and W. Ricciardi, “Health Technology Assessment of Belimumab: A New Monoclonal Antibody For The Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, 2014.
  • [48] T. Chaudhary, A. Chahar, J.K. Sharma, K. Kaur and A. Dang., “Phytomedicine in the Treatment of Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment,” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 39, no. 1. pp. 6–21, 2014. [49] F. Eftekharizadeh, R. Dehnavieh, S. N. Hekmat, and M. H. Mehrolhassani, “Health Technology Assessment on Super Oxidized Water For Treatment of Chronic Wounds,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016.
  • [50] M. Nojomi, M. Moradi-Lakeh, A. Velayati, A. Naghibzadeh-Tahami, H. Dadgostar, G. Ghorabi, M. Moradi-Joo and M. Yaghoubi, “Health Technology Assessment of Non-Invasive Interventions For Weight Loss And Body Shape in Iran,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016.
  • [51] A. Cicchetti, A. Berrino, M. Casini, P. Codella, G. Facco, A. Fiore, G. Marano, M. Marchetti, E. Midolo, R. Minacori, P. Refolo, F. Romano, M. Ruggeri, D. Sacchini, A.G. Spagnolo, I. Urbina, S. Vaglio, G. Grazzini and G.M. Liumbruno, “Health Technology Assessment of Pathogen Reduction Technologies Applied To Plasma For Clinical Use,” Blood Transfusion, vol. 14, no. 4. pp. 287–386, 2016.
  • [52] J. Arabloo, P. Hamouzadeh, F. Eftekharizadeh, M. Mobinizadeh, A. Olyaeemanesh, M. Nejati and S. Doaeee, “Health Technology Assessment of Magnet Therapy For Relieving Pain,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 184–188, 2017.
  • [53] S. Ettinger, M. Stanak, P. Szymanski, C. Wild, R.T. Hacek, D. Ercevic, R. Grenkovic and M. Huic, “Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillators For The Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Arrest: A Health Technology Assessment and Patient Focus Group Study,” Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, vol. 10, pp. 257–271, 2017.
  • [54] T. G. Poder, “Using The Health Technology Assessment Toolbox To Facilitate Procurement: The Case Of Smart Pumps in A Canadian Hospital,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 54–62, 2017.
  • [55] B. Kiselova Bilekova, B. Gavurova, and V. Rogalewicz, “Application of the HTA Core Model For Complex Evaluation of the Effectiveness And Quality of Radium-223 Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer,” Health Economics Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018.
  • [56] G. Goetz, M. Mitic, T. Mittermayr, and C. Wild, “Health Technology Assessment of Carbon-ion Beam Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety for 54 Oncological Indications in 12 Tumour Regions,” Anticancer Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1635–1650, 2019.
  • [57] A. Bretoni, L. Ferrario and E. Foglia, “Hta And Innovative Treatments Evaluation: The Case of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer,” ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, vol. 11, pp. 283–300, 2019.
  • [58] L. Ehlers et al., “Doing Mini-Health Technology Assessments in Hospitals: A New Concept of Decision Support in Health Care?” International. Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 295–301, 2006.
  • [59] M. D. Mitchell, K. Williams, P. J. Brennan, and C. A. Umscheid, “Integrating Local Data İnto Hospital-Based Healthcare Technology Assessment: Two Case Studies,” International. Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 294–300, 2010.
  • [60] G. Palozzi, S. Brunelli, and C. Falivena, “Higher Sustainability And Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework For Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 10, 2018.
  • [61] M. Karatas, I. Karacan and H. Tozan, “An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methodology for Health Technology Assessment,” European Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 504-534, 2018. [62] S. Howard, I.A. Scott, H. Ju, L. McQueen and P.A. Scuffham, “Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) For Health Technology Assessment: The Queensland Health Experience,” Australian Health Review, 2018.
  • [63] V. Diaby and V. Goeree, “How To Use Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods For Reimbursement Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Step-By-Step Guide,” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 81-99, 2014.
  • [64] M.D. Oliviera, I. Mataloto and P. Kanavos, “Multi‑Criteria Decision Analysis For Health Technology Assessment: Addressing Methodological Challenges To Improve The State Of The Art,” The European Journal of Health Economics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 891-918, 2019.
  • [65] M.M. Goetghebeur, M. Wagner, H. Khoury, R.J. Levitt, L.J. Erickson and D. Rindress, “Evidence And Value: Impact On Decisionmaking – The EVIDEM Framework and Potential Applications,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 8, no. 270, 2008.
  • [66] A. Angelis and P. Kavanos, “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) For Evaluating New Medicines in Health Technology Assessment And Beyond: The Advance Value Framework,” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 188, pp. 137-156, 2017.
  • [67] I. Karacan, “A New Hybrid Decision Support Tool And An Application To Health Technology Selection,” Department of Operations Research, Turkish Naval Academy, İstanbul, Turkey, 2015.
  • [68] B.E. Erol, B.Ö. Yılmaz, M.A. Karadayı and H. Tozan, “Combining Health Technology Assessment (HTA) & Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to Evaluate Kidney Stone Treatment Alternatives,” Presented in 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision-Making, Istanbul, 2019.
  • [69] I. Karacan, H. Tozan and M. Karatas, “Multi Criteria Decision Methods in Health Technology Assessment: A Brief Literature Review,” Eruasian Journal of Health Technology Assessment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12-19, 2016.
  • [70] H. Kim, Y. Kim, D. Park, D. Liew and Y. Rhee, “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Health Technology Assessment: Review of Literature on MCDA Methodology and Decision Criteria,” Journal of Health Technology Assessment, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 128-142, 2017.
  • [71] M. Tony, M. Wagner, H. Khoury, D. Rindress, T. Papastravros, P. Oh and M.M. Goetghebeur, “Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) With Multicriteria Decision Analyses (MCDA): Field Testing Of The EVIDEM Framework For Coverage Decisions By A Public Payer In Canada,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 11, 2011.
  • [72] M. M. Goetghebeur, M. Wagner, H. Khoury, R. J. Levitt, L. J. Erickson, and D. Rindress, “Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) And Efficient Health Care Decision Making With Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Applying The Evidem Framework To Medicines Appraisal,” Medical Decision Making, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 376–388, 2012.
  • [73] M. J. Hummel, F. Volz, J.G. van Manen, M. Danner, C.M. Dintsios, M.J. Ijzerman and A. Gerber, “Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process To Elicit Patient Preferences: Prioritizing Multiple Outcome Measures Of Antidepressant Drug Treatment,” Patient, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 225–237, 2012.
  • [74] P. Hajek et al., “Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) In HTA – Pilot Study in the Czech Republic,” Value in Health, vol. 17, no. 7, p. A439, 2014.
  • [75] G. Iskrov, T. Miteva-Katrandzhieva, and R. Stefanov, “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs,” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 4(Suppl 1), 2016. [76] H. E. C. Jaramillo, M. Goetghebeur, and O. Moreno-Mattar, “Testing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis For More Transparent Resource-Allocatıon Decision Making in Colombia,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 307–314, 2016.
  • [77] K. Kolasa, K. M. Zwolinski, Z. Kalo, and T. Hermanowski, “Potential Impact Of The İmplementation Of Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) On The Polish Pricing And Reimbursement Process Of Orphan Drugs,” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, vol. 11, no. 1, 2016.
  • [78] A. Angelis, G. Montibeller, D. Hochhauser, and P. Kanavos, “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in The Context Of Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Exercise On Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Multiple Stakeholders in The English Setting,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017.
  • [79] D. Brixner, N. Maniadakis, Z. Kaló, S. Hu, J. Shen, and K. Wijaya, “Considering Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Simple Scoring as an Evidence-Based HTA Methodology for Evaluating Off-Patent Pharmaceuticals (OPPs) in Emerging Markets,” Value in Health Regional Issues, vol. 13, pp. 1–6, 2017.
  • [80] C. Schey, P. F. M. Krabbe, M. J. Postma, and M. P. Connolly, “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Testing A Proposed MCDA Framework For Orphan Drugs,” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, vol. 12, no. 1, 2017.
  • [81] M. Wagner, H. Khoury, L. Bennetts, P. Berto, J. Ehreth, X. Badia and M. Goetghebeur, “Appraising The Holistic Value Of Lenvatinib For Radio-İodine Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Multi-Country Study Applying Pragmatic MCDA,” BMC Cancer, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017.
  • [82] A. Angelis, “Evaluating the Benefits of New Drugs in Health Technology Assessment Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study on Metastatic Prostate Cancer With the Dental and Pharmaceuticals Benefits Agency (TLV) in Sweden,” MDM Policy & Practice, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-17, 2018.
  • [83] N. Ashoush, “Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda) As an Evidence Based Health Technology Assessment in Health Care Decision Making in Egypt,” Value in Health, vol. 21, p. S66, 2018.
  • [84] J. Rosina, V. Rogalewicz, I. Ivlev, I. Jurickova, G. Donin, N. Jantosova, J. Vacek, R. Otatowa and P. Kneppo, “Health Technology Assessment fot Medical Devices,” Lekar a Technika, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 23-36, 2014.
  • [85] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
  • [86] I. Ivlev, J. Vacek, and P. Kneppo, “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis For Supporting The Selection Of Medical Devices Under Uncertainty,” European Journal of Operational Research., vol. 247, no. 1, pp. 216–228, 2015.
  • [87] P. Wahlster, M. Goetghebeur, S. Schaller, C. Kriza, and P. Kolominsky-Rabas, “Exploring The Perspectives And Preferences For HTA Across German Healthcare Stakeholders Using A Multi-Criteria Assessment Of A Pulmonary Heart Sensor As A Case Study,” Health Policy and Systems., vol. 13, no. 1, 2015.
  • [88] N. Martelli, P. Hansen, H. Van den Brink, A. Boudard, A. Cordonnier, C. Devaux, J. Pineau, P. Prognon and I. Borget, “Combining Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis And Mini-Health Technology Assessment: A Funding Decision-Support Tool For Medical Devices İn A University Hospital Setting,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics., vol. 59, pp. 201–208, 2016.
  • [89] C. Ottardi, A. Damonti, E. Porazzi, E. Foglia, L. Ferrario, T. Villa, E. Aimar, M. Brayda-Bruno and F. Galbusera, “A Comparative Analysis Of A Disposable And A Reusable Pedicle Screw İnstrument Kit For Lumbar Arthrodesis: İntegrating HTA And MCDA,” Health Economics. Review, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017.
  • [90] M. Kocaman, C. G. Turgut, E. Ozer, H. S. Cakmak, F. Baysu, and R. Kahveci, “The Feasibility of Applying the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for the Evaluation of Medical Devices in the Context of Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment in Turkey,” Value in Health, vol. 21, p. S266, 2018.
  • [91] M. M. Goetghebeur, M. Wagner, H. Khoury, D. Rindress, J. P. Grégoire, and C. Deal, “Combining Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Ethics And Health Technology Assessment: Applying The EVIDEM Decisionmaking Framework To Growth Hormone For Turner Syndrome Patients,” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation., vol. 8, 2010.
  • [92] J. Miot, M. Wagner, H. Khoury, D. Rindress, and M. M. Goetghebeur, “Field Testing of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Framework For Coverage Of A Screening Test For Cervical Cancer In South Africa,” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, vol. 10, 2012.
  • [93] A. Angelis and P. Kanavos, “Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessement: an Empirical Case Study,” Value in Health, vol. 17, no. 7, p. A552, 2014.
  • [94] M. Mobinizadeh, P. Raeissi, A. A. Nasiripour, A. Olyaeemanesh, and S. J. Tabibi, “A Model For Priority Setting Of Health Technology Assessment: The Experience Of AHP-TOPSIS Combination Approach,” Daru-Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, vol. 24, no. 1, 2016.
  • [95] I. Lasorsa, E. Padoano, S. Marceglia and A. Accardo, “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis For The Assessment of Non-Clinical Hospital Services: Methodology And Case Study,” Operations Research for Health Care, 2018.
  • [96] K. D. Marsh, M. Sculpher, J. J. Caro, and T. Tervonen, “The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great Potential, but More Effort Needed,” Value in Health, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 394–397, 2018.
  • [97] K. Marsh, P. Thokala, S. Youngkong, and K. Chalkidou, “Incorporating MCDA into HTA: Challenges and Potential Solutions, With A Focus On Lower İncome Settings,” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, vol. 16, no.43, 2018.
  • [98] L. T. Kelley, R. Egan, D. Stockley, and A. P. Johnson, “Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Health Technology Assessment,” Health Policy and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 310–317, 2018.
  • [99] R. Baltussen, K. Marsh, P. Thokala, V. Diaby, H.E. Castro, I. Cleemput, M. Garau, G. Iskrov, A. Olyaeemanesh, A. Mirelman, M. Mobinizadeh, A. Morton, M. Tringali, J. Van Til, J. Valentim, M. Wagner, S. Youngkong, V. Zah, A. Toll, M. Jansen, M. Bijlmakers, W. Oortwijn and B. Broekhuizen, “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis To Support HTA Agencies – Benefits, Limitations And The Way Forward,” Value in Health, 2019.
  • [100] P. Hansen and N. Devlin. (2019, 26 April). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Healthcare Decision-Making. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. Available: https://oxfordre.com/economics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-98.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular Mühendislik
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-6959-9168
Yazar: Melis Almula KARADAYI (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-6002-9524
Yazar: Beyza Özlem YILMAZ
Kurum: İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-5936-3004
Yazar: Bilgehan Eren EROL
Kurum: İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-0479-6937
Yazar: Hakan TOZAN
Kurum: İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Tarihler

Yayımlanma Tarihi : 31 Ocak 2020

Bibtex @derleme { dubited602936, journal = {Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2148-2446}, address = {}, publisher = {Düzce Üniversitesi}, year = {2020}, volume = {8}, pages = {264 - 289}, doi = {}, title = {Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması}, key = {cite}, author = {KARADAYI, Melis Almula and YILMAZ, Beyza Özlem and EROL, Bilgehan Eren and TOZAN, Hakan} }
APA KARADAYI, M , YILMAZ, B , EROL, B , TOZAN, H . (2020). Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi , 8 (1) , 264-289 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dubited/issue/49725/602936
MLA KARADAYI, M , YILMAZ, B , EROL, B , TOZAN, H . "Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması". Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 8 (2020 ): 264-289 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dubited/issue/49725/602936>
Chicago KARADAYI, M , YILMAZ, B , EROL, B , TOZAN, H . "Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması". Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 8 (2020 ): 264-289
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması AU - Melis Almula KARADAYI , Beyza Özlem YILMAZ , Bilgehan Eren EROL , Hakan TOZAN Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - DO - T2 - Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 264 EP - 289 VL - 8 IS - 1 SN - -2148-2446 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması %A Melis Almula KARADAYI , Beyza Özlem YILMAZ , Bilgehan Eren EROL , Hakan TOZAN %T Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması %D 2020 %J Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi %P -2148-2446 %V 8 %N 1 %R %U
ISNAD KARADAYI, Melis Almula , YILMAZ, Beyza Özlem , EROL, Bilgehan Eren , TOZAN, Hakan . "Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması". Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 8 / 1 (Ocak 2020): 264-289 .
AMA KARADAYI M , YILMAZ B , EROL B , TOZAN H . Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması. DÜBİTED. 2020; 8(1): 264-289.
Vancouver KARADAYI M , YILMAZ B , EROL B , TOZAN H . Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmede Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi. 2020; 8(1): 289-264.