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.