Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Reddy, B.P.; Kelly, M.P.; Thokala, P.; Walters, S.J.; Duenas, A. (2014)
Publisher: Elsevier
Journal: Public Health
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
The Centre for Public Health (CPH), at the United Kingdom's National Institute\ud for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for producing national guidance\ud relating to the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of disease.\ud Given the challenges of developing guidance in this area, choosing the most appropriate\ud topics for further study is of fundamental importance. This paper explores the current\ud prioritisation process and describes how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi\ud criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique, might be used to do so.\ud Study design: A proposed approach is outlined, which was tested in a proof of concept pilot.\ud This consisted of eight participants with experience of related NICE committees building\ud scores for each topic together in a 'decision conference' setting.\ud Methods: Criteria were identified and subsequently weighted to indicate the relative\ud importance of each. Participants then collaboratively estimated the performance of each\ud topic on each criterion.\ud Results: Total scores for each topic were calculated, which could be ranked and used as the\ud basis for better informed discussion for prioritising topics to recommend to the Minister for\ud future guidance. Sensitivity analyses of the dataset found it to be robust.\ud Conclusions: Choosing the right topics for guidance at the earliest possible time is of\ud fundamental importance to public health guidance, and judgement is likely to play an\ud important part in doing so. MCDA techniques offer a potentially useful approach to\ud structuring the problem in a rational and transparent way. NICE should consider carefully\ud whether such an approach might be worth pursuing in the future
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Kelly MP. Public health guidance and the role of new NICE. Public Health 2005;119(11):960e8.
    • 2. Turnock BJ. Essentials of public health. Jones Bartlett Learn; 2007.
    • 3. Franco LA, Montibeller G. Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis interventions. Wiley Encyclopaedia of operations research and management science. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2012.
    • 4. Orr S, Wolff J, Morris S. What values should count in HTA for new medicines under value based pricing in the UK?. Available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/cpjh/mcda.pdf; 2011.
    • 5. Devlin NJ, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
    • 6. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. Priority-setting for population health working paper series, Working Paper No 7. London: Department of Management; 2011.
    • 7. Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health; 2012::14.
    • 8. Youngkong S, Teerawattananon, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/ AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst 2012;10:6.
    • 9. Dolan JG. Involving patients in decisions regarding preventive health interventions using the analytic hierarchy process. Health Expect 2000;3(1):37e45.
    • 10. Cunich M, Salkeld G, Dowie J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Britt H, Howard K. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient: PatientCentered Outcomes Res 2011;4(3):153e62.
    • 11. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
    • 12. Dowie J. 'Evidence-based', 'cost-effective' and 'preferencedriven' medicine: decision analysis based medical decision making is the pre-requisite. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1(2):104e13.
    • 13. Simon HA. Models of man: social and rational. New York: Wiley; 1957 [from Williams & Bryan 2007].
    • 14. Williams IP, Bryan S. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: findings from research. Soc Sci Med 2007;65(10):2116e29.
    • 15. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Allocation 2006;4:14.
    • 16. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National institute for clinical excellence and its value judgements. Br Med J 2004;329:224e7.
    • 17. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. Br Med J 2000;321:1300e1.
    • 18. Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1999.
    • 19. Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S. Benefit risk appraisal of medicines: a systematic approach to decision making. UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.
    • 20. Kennedy I. Appraising the value of innovation and other benefits, a short study for NICE. NICE. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/ media/98F/5C/KennedyStudyFinalReport.pdf; 2009.
    • 21. Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multicriteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy 2010;96(3):262e4.
    • 22. Owen L, Morgan A, Fischer A, Ellis S, Hoy A, Kelly MP. The cost effectiveness of public health interventions. J Public Health. 2012;34(1):37e45.
    • 23. NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd ed. NICE. Available at: http://publications.nice.org.uk/ methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-healthguidance-third-edition-pmg4/; 2012.
    • 24. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26(3):341e7.
    • 25. Sanders WB, Pinhey TK. The conduct of social research. New York: The Dryden Press; 1983.
    • 26. Phillips LD, Bana e Costa C. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 2007;154(1):51e68.
    • 27. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 1990;48:9e26.
    • 28. Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev 1963;53(5):951e73.
    • 29. Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
    • 30. Phillips LD, Fasolo B, Zafiropoulos N, Beyer A. Is quantitative benefit-risk modelling of drugs desirable or possible. Drug Discov Today Technol 2011;8(1):E3e10.
    • 31. Wilson ECF, Rees J, Fordham RJ. Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Allocation 2006;4:3.
    • 32. Matrix Insight. Prioritising investments in preventative health. Health England. Available at: www.healthengland.org/ publications/HealthEnglandReportNo5.pdf; 2009.
    • 33. Belton V, Geare T. On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 1983;11(3):143e4.
    • 34. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 2008;1:1.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article