Organizational Aspect in Healthcare Decision-making: a Literature Review

Overview

Journal J Mark Access Health Policy

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Public Health

Date 2020 Sep 18

PMID 32944200

Citations 2

Authors

Amelie Dubromel

Marie-Audrey Duvinage-Vonesch

Loic Geffroy

Claude Dussart

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues.

Materials And Methods: A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory.

Results: We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings.

Conclusion: Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.

Citing Articles

What Do Medical Physicists Do? Leadership and Challenges in Administration and Various Business Functions.

Paul J Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022; 7(6):100947.

PMID: 36420190 PMC: 9677202. DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100947.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for therapeutic innovations in a hemophilia care center: A pilot study of the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management.

Beny K, Dubromel A, du Sartz de Vigneulles B, Gay V, Carrouel F, Negrier C PLoS One. 2022; 17(9):e0273775.

PMID: 36084067 PMC: 9462757. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273775.

References

Berra S, Sanchez E, Pons J, Tebe C, Alonso J, Aymerich M . Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: properties of an adapted and updated method. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26(2):217-24. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000012. View

Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N . Reimbursement decisions in health policy--extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy. 2005; 73(3):330-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.12.002. View

Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L . Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II. Is health economics 'for good or evil'?. Health Policy. 1999; 46(2):143-57. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(98)00057-8. View

Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin F, Rhainds M . Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): the views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect. 2012; 17(6):888-900. PMC: 5060924. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12010. View

Bergh C, Alopaeus E, Jivegard L, Samuelsson O, Sjovall H, Strandell A . [Regional HTA work can have a good impact on health care. Good examples form Vastra Gotaland]. Lakartidningen. 2010; 107(29-31):1780-3. View

Tromp N, Baltussen R . Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12:454. PMC: 3565954. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-454. View

Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Samaha D, ONeil W, Badgley D, Castro-Jaramillo H . EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017; 33(4):504-520. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317000915. View

Gonzalez-Zapata L, Alvarez-Dardet C, Ortiz-Moncada R, Clemente V, Millstone E, Holdsworth M . Policy options for obesity in Europe: a comparison of public health specialists with other stakeholders. Public Health Nutr. 2008; 12(7):896-908. DOI: 10.1017/S136898000800308X. View

Baltussen R, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, Grutters J, Kluytmans A, Reuzel R . Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes. Value Health. 2017; 20(2):256-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.019. View

10.

Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B . Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007; 23(1):9-16. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307051513. View

11.

Hofmann B . Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21(3):312-8. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462305050415. View

12.

Wilson E, Sussex J, MacLeod C, Fordham R . Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 12(2):80-5. DOI: 10.1258/135581907780279495. View

13.

Greenberg D, Peterburg Y, Vekstein D, Pliskin J . Decisions to adopt new technologies at the hospital level: insights from Israeli medical centers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21(2):219-27. View

14.

Le Gales C, Moatti J . Searching for consensus through multi-criteria decision analysis. Assessment of screening strategies for hemoglobinopathies in southeastern France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990; 6(3):430-49. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300001033. View

15.

Guindo L, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P . From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012; 10(1):9. PMC: 3495194. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-9. View

16.

Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour A, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi S . The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016; 30:329. PMC: 4898853. View

17.

Mathew J . KNOW ESSENTIALS: a tool for informed decisions in the absence of formal HTA systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(2):139-50. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000109. View

18.

Browman G, Manns B, Hagen N, Chambers C, Simon A, Sinclair S . 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs. J Oncol Pract. 2010; 4(1):2-7. PMC: 2793938. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.0812001. View

19.

Pitini E, De Vito C, Marzuillo C, DAndrea E, Rosso A, Federici A . How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018; 26(5):605-615. PMC: 5945588. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0095-5. View

20.

Kapiriri L, Norheim O, Martin D . Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 68(4):766-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.011. View