Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of included items

From: ‘Real-world’ health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature

Study Country Setting Weighting method Method Type of decision
[22] Australia Hospital Mixture of several different methods (ratio, rating scale) PBMA Increased resource allocation for highly-ranked programs
[23] Nepal National level Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Ranking of 34 possible interventions
[24] UK Primary Care Trust Allocation of points method PBMA Prioritizing 4 programs for diabetes care
[25] New Zealand Public Health System No weights described PBMA 5 investments, 5 disinvestments
[26] Norway Norwegian Health Ministry Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Ranking of 21 different alternatives among 5 health domains
[27] Canada Health Authority Weights, method not described PBMA 18 investments, 13 disinvestments, $4.5 m reallocation
[18] Canada Health Authority 40 points could be allocated to any of 40 items PBMA $16 m reallocated, $1 m released through service reduction
[28] Canada Not specified Weights, method not clear MCDA Creation of priorities list
[29] New Zealand Health Authority No weights described PBMA Summary of decisions
[30] Canada Municipal District No weights described PBMA Program alternatives prioritized
[31] USA Health Authority Percentages (allocation? Ratio?) MCDAa Ranking of 47 programs funded by the region
[32] UK 2 Primary Care Trusts Allocation of points method PBMA 66 proposals approved that met criteria out of 134 submitted
[33] Ghana National level Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Ranking of 11 health programs
[34] Canada Provincial level Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Development of decision tool
[35] UK Primary Care Trust Mix of ratio (for main criteria) and points allocation (for sub-criteria) PBMA £3.37 m disinvested, £2 m used for defecit reduction
[36] Taiwan National Health Insurance Grey incidence mathematical expression MCDA Access to care optimization
[37] Korea Hospital Goal programming multicriteria decision modelling MCDA Staffing and other logistic optimization for hospital resource allocation to meet goals
[38] Tanzania National Ministry of Health No weights described MCDA Prioritization of 9 programs
[39] UK Department of (Public) Health Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Ranking of 14 different preventative health measures
[40] South Africa Department of Health Rating Scale MCDA Evaluation of LBC as cervical cancer screening tool
[41] Canada Health Authority 40 points could be allocated to any of 40 items PBMA $40 m in resources released, used for defecit and reinvestment
[42] Canada Health Authority Allocation of points method MCDA 9 alternative programs ranked
[43] Canada Health Authority Allocation of points method PBMA 44 disinvestments, $4.9 million in cost reduction
[44] Canada University faculty of medicine Allocation of points method PBMA 55 disinvestments, $2.7 million in cost reduction
[45] UK Health Authority No weights described MCDA Construction of optimization model; mapping of disinvestments
[46] Canada Surgical Department in Hospital No weights described MCDA Evaluation of 53 health technologies
[47] Canada Surgical Services in Health Region No weights described MCDA Development of decision tool
[48] UK Primary Care Trust Allocation of points method PBMA Ranking of 7 programs with PBMA, then with ad hoc approach
[49] Canada Health Authority No weights described PBMA Additional funding of $200,000
[50] UK Primary Care Trust Allocation of points method MCDA Ranking of 4 program alternatives
[51] UK Primary Care Trust Allocation of points method MCDA Ranking of 6 different alternatives
[52] Thailand National level Discrete Choice Experiment MCDA Ranking of 40 HIV/AIDS interventions
[53] Thailand National level No weights described MCDA Ranking of 17 possible services for inclusion in national insurance scheme
  1. a – This paper describes its methodology as “decision science”, but the methodology is very similar to MCDA, as was therefore classified that way.