314
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Supporting rehabilitation stakeholders in making service delivery decisions: a rapid review of multi-criteria decision analysis methods

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 1933-1946 | Received 23 Aug 2021, Accepted 15 May 2022, Published online: 01 Jun 2022

References

  • Barratt A. Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):407–412.
  • Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–180.
  • Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):526–535.
  • Dolan JG. Shared decision-making-transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):418–425.
  • Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.
  • Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.
  • Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–137.
  • Terris-Prestholt F, Neke N, Grund JM, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions. Trials. 2019;20(1):1–11.
  • Gallego G, Dew A, Lincoln M, et al. Carers’ preferences for the delivery of therapy services for people with disability in rural Australia: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2018;62(5):371–381.
  • Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.
  • Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–248.
  • Frazão TDC, Camilo DGG, Cabral ELS, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):1–16.
  • Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1894–1905.
  • Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(10):951–965.
  • Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, et al. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(8):1053–1066.
  • Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):10–19.
  • Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
  • Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, et al. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Adelaide (SA): JBI; 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
  • Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:61–67.
  • Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne (Australia): Veritas Health Innovation; 2019.
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
  • QSR International. NVIvo qualitative data analysis software, 10th ed. Doncaster: QSR International Pty Ltd.; 2012.
  • Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288.
  • Morse JM. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(9):1212–1222.
  • Aboagye E, Hagberg J, Axén I, et al. Individual preferences for physical exercise as secondary prevention for non-specific low back pain: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0187709.
  • Blaine K, Rogers J, OʼNeill MR, et al. Clinician perceptions of the importance of hospital discharge components for children. J Healthc Qual. 2018;40(2):79–88.
  • Boyde M, Rankin J, Whitty JA, et al. Patient preferences for the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(12):2162–2169.
  • Burton CR, Fargher E, Plumpton C, et al. Investigating preferences for support with life after stroke: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(63):63.
  • Charles JM, Roberts JL, Ud Din N, et al. Preferences of older patients regarding hip fracture rehabilitation service configuration: a feasibility discrete choice experiment. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50(7):636–642.
  • Chen LC, Cheng LJ, Zhang Y, et al. Acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment for low back pain in Chinese patients: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126912.
  • Claassen AAOM, Kremers–van de Hei K, van den Hoogen FHJ, et al. Most important frequently asked questions from patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: a best-worst scaling exercise. Arthritis Care Res. 2019;71(7):885–892.
  • Day SD, Nguyen KH, Comans T, et al. Professional development training preferences of occupational therapists working with older adults in Australia: a discrete choice experiment. Aust Occup Ther J. 2021;68(4):327–335.
  • Dionne F, Mitton C, MacDonald T, et al. The challenge of obtaining information necessary for multi-criteria decision analysis implementation: the case of physiotherapy services in Canada. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1):11.
  • Dixon S, Nancarrow SA, Enderby PM, et al. Assessing patient preferences for the delivery of different community-based models of care using a discrete choice experiment. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1204–1214.
  • Ferreira GE, Howard K, Zadro JR, et al. People considering exercise to prevent low back pain recurrence prefer exercise programs that differ from programs known to be effective: a discrete choice experiment. J Physiother. 2020;66(4):249–255.
  • Franco MR, Howard K, Sherrington C, et al. Eliciting older people’s preferences for exercise programs: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. J Physiother. 2015;61(1):34–41.
  • Gallego G, Dew A, Bulkeley K, et al. Factors affecting retention of allied health professionals working with people with disability in rural New South Wales, Australia: discrete choice experiment questionnaire development. Hum Resour Health. 2015;13(22):22.
  • Gallego G, Dew A, Lincoln M, et al. Should I stay or should I go? Exploring the job preferences of allied health professionals working with people with disability in rural Australia. Hum Resour Health. 2015;13(53):53.
  • Geidl W, Knocke K, Schupp W, et al. Measuring stroke patients’ exercise preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Neurol Int. 2018;10(1):6993.
  • Gilbert AW, Mentzakis E, May CR, et al. Patient preferences for use of virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2022;27(1):62–73.
  • Hummel JMM, Snoek GJ, Van Til JA, et al. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):635–644.
  • IJzerman MJ, Van Til JA, Bridges JFP. A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient. 2012;5(1):45–56.
  • Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Shulver W, et al. Investigating the preferences of older people for telehealth as a new model of health care service delivery: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(2):301–313.
  • Kalra S, Ajmera P, Chorsiya V, et al. Telerehabilitation services in India: an integrated SWOT and AHP analysis. Int J Physiother. 2021;8(3):170–176.
  • Karyani AK, Rashidian A, Sari AA, et al. Developing attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment on basic health insurance in Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018;32(26).
  • Karyani AK, Sari AA, Woldemichael A. Eliciting preferences for health insurance in Iran using discrete choice experiment analysis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(8):488–497.
  • Kjaer T, Gyrd-Hansen D. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2008;85(1):124–132.
  • Kjaer T, Gyrd-Hansen D, Willaing I. Investigating patients’ preferences for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2):211–218.
  • Lakhani A, Zeeman H, Wright CJ, et al. Stakeholder priorities for inclusive accessible housing: a systematic review and multicriteria decision analysis. J Multi‐Crit Decis Anal. 2020;27(1-2):5–19.
  • Laver K, Ratcliffe J, George S, et al. Early rehabilitation management after stroke: What do stroke patients prefer? J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(4):354–358.
  • Laver K, Ratcliffe J, George S, et al. Is the Nintendo Wii fit really acceptable to older people? A discrete choice experiment. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(64).
  • Laver K, Ratcliffe J, George S, et al. Preferences for rehabilitation service delivery: a comparison of the views of patients, occupational therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians using a discrete choice experiment. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60(2):93–100.
  • Lee S-F, Lee W-S. Promoting the quality of hospital service for children with developmental delays. Serv Ind J. 2013;33(15–16):1514–1526.
  • Liang HW, Chen HG. The need scoping and prioritization of the medical team to integrate new technologies for inpatient rehabilitation services. J Formos Med Assoc. 2021;120(1 Pt 1):242–249.
  • Lieberz D, Borgeson H, Dobson S, et al. A physical therapy mobility checkup for older adults: feasibility and participant preferences from a discrete choice experiment. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2022;9(1):24–34.
  • Lo C, Tran Y, Anderson K, et al. Functional priorities in persons with spinal cord injury: using discrete choice experiments to determine preferences. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(21):1958–1968.
  • Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Miller M, et al. What are frail older people prepared to endure to achieve improved mobility following hip fracture? A discrete choice experiment. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(1):81–86.
  • Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, et al. Cognitive overload? An exploration of the potential impact of cognitive functioning in discrete choice experiments with older people in health care. Value Health. 2014;17(5):655–659.
  • Mühlbacher A, Bethge S. Preferences of overweight and obese patients for weight loss programs: a discrete-choice experiment. Int J Integr Care. 2013;13(3):e034.
  • Napora JK, Demyanovich H, Mulliken A, et al. Patients’ preferences for occupational therapy after upper extremity fractures: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e039888.
  • Ozsahin I, Mustapha MT, Albarwary S, et al. An investigation to choose the proper therapy technique in the management of autism spectrum disorder. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10(5):423–437.
  • Paul SS, Canning CG, Löfgren N, et al. People with Parkinson’s disease are more willing to do additional exercise if the exercise program has specific attributes: a discrete choice experiment. J Physiother. 2021;67(1):49–55.
  • Pecchia L, Bath PA, Pendleton N, et al. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for examining healthcare professionals’ assessments of risk factors: the relative importance of risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people. Methods Inf Med. 2010;49:435–444.
  • Pinto D, Danilovich MK, Hansen P, et al. Qualitative development of a discrete choice experiment for physical activity interventions to improve Knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(6):1210–1216.
  • Poder TG, Beffarat M, Benkhalti M, et al. A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:933–940.
  • Rademaker MM, Essers BAB, Stokroos RJ, et al. What tinnitus therapy outcome measures are important for patients? – A discrete choice experiment. Front Neurol. 2021;12(668880).
  • Raymond M-H, Demers L, Feldman DE. Differences in waiting list prioritization preferences of occupational therapists, elderly people, and persons with disabilities: a discrete choice experiment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(1):35–42.
  • Shahabi S, Skempes D, Behzadifar M, et al. Recommendations to improve insurance coverage for physiotherapy services in Iran: a multi criteria decision-making approach. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021;19(1):80.
  • Stamuli E, Torgerson D, Northgraves M, et al. Identifying the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial in rheumatoid arthritis: the role of a discrete choice experiment. J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10(57):57.
  • van Niekerk K, Dada S, Tönsing K. Perspectives of rehabilitation professionals on assistive technology provision to young children in South Africa: a national survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;0(0):1–8.
  • van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, et al. The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):457–462.
  • Wang D, Wu J, Lin Q. A novel method for designing and optimizing the layout of facilities in bathroom for the elderly in home-based rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(4):333–341.
  • Wang K, Wong ELY, Wong AYK, et al. Preference of older adults for flexibility in service and providers in community-based social care: a discrete choice experiment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):686.
  • Webb EJD, Lynch Y, Meads D, et al. Finding the best fit: examining the decision-making of augmentative and alternative communication professionals in the UK using a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e030274.
  • Webb EJD, Meads D, Lynch Y, et al. What’s important in AAC decision making for children? Evidence from a best-worst scaling survey. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(2):80–94.
  • Yi D, Ryan M, Campbell S, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials: an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(5):531.e1–531.e10.
  • Yoo J, Yoon M, Lee CK, et al. An exploratory survey of priorities in establishing telepractice system for SLPs and caregivers in Korea. Commun Disord Q. 2021;42(4):230–237.
  • Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–546.
  • Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315.
  • Mühlbacher AC, Zweifel P, Kaczynski A, et al. Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(5).
  • Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, et al. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(2).
  • Stacey D, Légaré F, Boland L, et al. 20th anniversary ottawa decision support framework: part 3 overview of systematic reviews and updated framework. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(3):379–398.
  • Gilbert AW, May CR, Brown H, et al. A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations. Arch Physiother. 2021;11(1):20.
  • Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–1400.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.