Loading…

A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt

Background With the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC medical informatics and decision making 2022-11, Vol.22 (1), p.1-289, Article 289
Main Authors: Elezbawy, Baher, Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader, Németh, Bertalan, Gamal, Mary, Eldebeiky, Mariam, Refaat, Remonda, Taha, Amr, Rabiea, Shimaa, Abdallah, Marwa, Ramadan, Soha, Noaman, Hasnaa, Eldin, Amany Bahaa, Mostafa, Hossam, Nouh, Sara, Zaki, Asmaa, Abdelrahman, Mohamed, Abaza, Sherif, Kalò, Zoltàn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83
container_end_page 289
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title BMC medical informatics and decision making
container_volume 22
creator Elezbawy, Baher
Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader
Németh, Bertalan
Gamal, Mary
Eldebeiky, Mariam
Refaat, Remonda
Taha, Amr
Rabiea, Shimaa
Abdallah, Marwa
Ramadan, Soha
Noaman, Hasnaa
Eldin, Amany Bahaa
Mostafa, Hossam
Nouh, Sara
Zaki, Asmaa
Abdelrahman, Mohamed
Abaza, Sherif
Kalò, Zoltàn
description Background With the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captures and compares all implantable medical devices' attributes, to provide an objective method for choosing among the available options in Egypt. Method We conducted a systematic review and expert interviews, to identify the relevant criteria for inclusion in the tool. Subsequently, a workshop was conducted, that involved experts in procuring and tendering medical devices. Experts chose the criteria, ranked them, assigned weights and scoring functions for each criterion, and then created the draft tool. A pilot phase followed; then, another workshop was conducted to fine-tune the tool. We readjusted the tool based on experts' experience with the draft tool. Results The final tool included eight criteria, arranged according to their weightage: technical characteristics (29.4%), country of origin (19.5%), use in reference countries (14.9%), supply reliability (11.7%), previous use in tenders (9.0%), instant replacement within product variety (6.9%), pharmacovigilance (4.6%), and refund or replacement (4.0%). Each medical device was assessed on these eight criteria to achieve a final score, that was compared to the alternative devices' scores. Price is not included in the MCDA tool, but it will be added in the financial evaluation phase. Conclusion Decisionmakers could use the MCDA tool, to make evidence-based and objective decisions for purchasing implantable devices, in the Egyptian public sector. Post price evaluation, the product with the best value will be chosen for reimbursement. Highlights We created an MCDA tool to help decision makers choose between alternative implantable medical devices in Egypt. The MCDA tool includes eight criteria, where price is evaluated as a separate step. "Technical characteristics" and "country of origin" criteria carried the highest weights, thus representing approximately 50% of the decision. Keywords: MCDA, Multicriteria decision analysis, Medical devices, Implantable, Procurement
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12911-022-02025-y
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_2826ff6686b74cc1bbc2bc94919d1b64</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A726042361</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2826ff6686b74cc1bbc2bc94919d1b64</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A726042361</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUk1v1DAQjRCIlsIf4GSJSzmk2I7tOBek1VKgUhEXuGLZY3vrVRIHO6mUf4-7WwGLkOUPjd-8mTd6VfWa4CtCpHiXCe0IqTGlZWPK6_VJdU5YS2vRsfbpX--z6kXOe4xJKxv-vDprRMNpI-l59WODhqWfA6QwuxQ0sg5CDnFEetT9mkNGl1-2HzZv0RxjXw40LQnudHYoDFOvx1mb3qHB2QC6L9n3AVxGYUTXu3WaX1bPvO6ze_V4X1TfP15_236ub79-utlubmvgDM-1c54YZiyWwgMxuPRMjPdWytKopgCArTZSUG51xwXh3hGhLYAWuHVWNhfVzZHXRr1XUwqDTquKOqhDIKad0qmo7J2ikgrvhZDCtAxKNQPUQMc60lliBCtc749c02KKLnDjnHR_Qnr6M4Y7tYv3qhOMMd4VgstHghR_Li7PaggZXF-m5eKSFW0bTkTRxgv0zT_QfVxSmfwB1QrJW4H_oHa6CAijj6UuPJCqTUsFZrQRpKCu_oMqy7ohQBydDyV-kkCPCZBizsn53xoJVg8OU0eHqeIwdXCYWptfDJ_CKw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2737685760</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Elezbawy, Baher ; Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader ; Németh, Bertalan ; Gamal, Mary ; Eldebeiky, Mariam ; Refaat, Remonda ; Taha, Amr ; Rabiea, Shimaa ; Abdallah, Marwa ; Ramadan, Soha ; Noaman, Hasnaa ; Eldin, Amany Bahaa ; Mostafa, Hossam ; Nouh, Sara ; Zaki, Asmaa ; Abdelrahman, Mohamed ; Abaza, Sherif ; Kalò, Zoltàn</creator><creatorcontrib>Elezbawy, Baher ; Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader ; Németh, Bertalan ; Gamal, Mary ; Eldebeiky, Mariam ; Refaat, Remonda ; Taha, Amr ; Rabiea, Shimaa ; Abdallah, Marwa ; Ramadan, Soha ; Noaman, Hasnaa ; Eldin, Amany Bahaa ; Mostafa, Hossam ; Nouh, Sara ; Zaki, Asmaa ; Abdelrahman, Mohamed ; Abaza, Sherif ; Kalò, Zoltàn</creatorcontrib><description>Background With the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captures and compares all implantable medical devices' attributes, to provide an objective method for choosing among the available options in Egypt. Method We conducted a systematic review and expert interviews, to identify the relevant criteria for inclusion in the tool. Subsequently, a workshop was conducted, that involved experts in procuring and tendering medical devices. Experts chose the criteria, ranked them, assigned weights and scoring functions for each criterion, and then created the draft tool. A pilot phase followed; then, another workshop was conducted to fine-tune the tool. We readjusted the tool based on experts' experience with the draft tool. Results The final tool included eight criteria, arranged according to their weightage: technical characteristics (29.4%), country of origin (19.5%), use in reference countries (14.9%), supply reliability (11.7%), previous use in tenders (9.0%), instant replacement within product variety (6.9%), pharmacovigilance (4.6%), and refund or replacement (4.0%). Each medical device was assessed on these eight criteria to achieve a final score, that was compared to the alternative devices' scores. Price is not included in the MCDA tool, but it will be added in the financial evaluation phase. Conclusion Decisionmakers could use the MCDA tool, to make evidence-based and objective decisions for purchasing implantable devices, in the Egyptian public sector. Post price evaluation, the product with the best value will be chosen for reimbursement. Highlights We created an MCDA tool to help decision makers choose between alternative implantable medical devices in Egypt. The MCDA tool includes eight criteria, where price is evaluated as a separate step. "Technical characteristics" and "country of origin" criteria carried the highest weights, thus representing approximately 50% of the decision. Keywords: MCDA, Multicriteria decision analysis, Medical devices, Implantable, Procurement</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6947</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-02025-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36352382</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Availability ; Decision analysis ; Electronic implants ; Evaluation ; Health care industry ; Health care policy ; Health informatics ; Implantable ; Implants, Artificial ; Literature reviews ; MCDA ; Medical devices ; Medical electronics ; Medical equipment ; Medical technology ; Methods ; Multicriteria decision analysis ; Multiple criteria decision making ; Multiple criterion ; Pharmacovigilance ; Procurement ; Prosthesis ; Public sector ; Purchasing ; Search engines ; Systematic review ; Transplants &amp; implants ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022-11, Vol.22 (1), p.1-289, Article 289</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2022. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9644459/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2737685760?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,25734,27905,27906,36993,36994,44571,53772,53774</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elezbawy, Baher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Németh, Bertalan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gamal, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldebeiky, Mariam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Refaat, Remonda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taha, Amr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabiea, Shimaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdallah, Marwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramadan, Soha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noaman, Hasnaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldin, Amany Bahaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mostafa, Hossam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nouh, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaki, Asmaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelrahman, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abaza, Sherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalò, Zoltàn</creatorcontrib><title>A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt</title><title>BMC medical informatics and decision making</title><description>Background With the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captures and compares all implantable medical devices' attributes, to provide an objective method for choosing among the available options in Egypt. Method We conducted a systematic review and expert interviews, to identify the relevant criteria for inclusion in the tool. Subsequently, a workshop was conducted, that involved experts in procuring and tendering medical devices. Experts chose the criteria, ranked them, assigned weights and scoring functions for each criterion, and then created the draft tool. A pilot phase followed; then, another workshop was conducted to fine-tune the tool. We readjusted the tool based on experts' experience with the draft tool. Results The final tool included eight criteria, arranged according to their weightage: technical characteristics (29.4%), country of origin (19.5%), use in reference countries (14.9%), supply reliability (11.7%), previous use in tenders (9.0%), instant replacement within product variety (6.9%), pharmacovigilance (4.6%), and refund or replacement (4.0%). Each medical device was assessed on these eight criteria to achieve a final score, that was compared to the alternative devices' scores. Price is not included in the MCDA tool, but it will be added in the financial evaluation phase. Conclusion Decisionmakers could use the MCDA tool, to make evidence-based and objective decisions for purchasing implantable devices, in the Egyptian public sector. Post price evaluation, the product with the best value will be chosen for reimbursement. Highlights We created an MCDA tool to help decision makers choose between alternative implantable medical devices in Egypt. The MCDA tool includes eight criteria, where price is evaluated as a separate step. "Technical characteristics" and "country of origin" criteria carried the highest weights, thus representing approximately 50% of the decision. Keywords: MCDA, Multicriteria decision analysis, Medical devices, Implantable, Procurement</description><subject>Availability</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Electronic implants</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health informatics</subject><subject>Implantable</subject><subject>Implants, Artificial</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>MCDA</subject><subject>Medical devices</subject><subject>Medical electronics</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical technology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Multicriteria decision analysis</subject><subject>Multiple criteria decision making</subject><subject>Multiple criterion</subject><subject>Pharmacovigilance</subject><subject>Procurement</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>Purchasing</subject><subject>Search engines</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>1472-6947</issn><issn>1472-6947</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUk1v1DAQjRCIlsIf4GSJSzmk2I7tOBek1VKgUhEXuGLZY3vrVRIHO6mUf4-7WwGLkOUPjd-8mTd6VfWa4CtCpHiXCe0IqTGlZWPK6_VJdU5YS2vRsfbpX--z6kXOe4xJKxv-vDprRMNpI-l59WODhqWfA6QwuxQ0sg5CDnFEetT9mkNGl1-2HzZv0RxjXw40LQnudHYoDFOvx1mb3qHB2QC6L9n3AVxGYUTXu3WaX1bPvO6ze_V4X1TfP15_236ub79-utlubmvgDM-1c54YZiyWwgMxuPRMjPdWytKopgCArTZSUG51xwXh3hGhLYAWuHVWNhfVzZHXRr1XUwqDTquKOqhDIKad0qmo7J2ikgrvhZDCtAxKNQPUQMc60lliBCtc749c02KKLnDjnHR_Qnr6M4Y7tYv3qhOMMd4VgstHghR_Li7PaggZXF-m5eKSFW0bTkTRxgv0zT_QfVxSmfwB1QrJW4H_oHa6CAijj6UuPJCqTUsFZrQRpKCu_oMqy7ohQBydDyV-kkCPCZBizsn53xoJVg8OU0eHqeIwdXCYWptfDJ_CKw</recordid><startdate>20221109</startdate><enddate>20221109</enddate><creator>Elezbawy, Baher</creator><creator>Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader</creator><creator>Németh, Bertalan</creator><creator>Gamal, Mary</creator><creator>Eldebeiky, Mariam</creator><creator>Refaat, Remonda</creator><creator>Taha, Amr</creator><creator>Rabiea, Shimaa</creator><creator>Abdallah, Marwa</creator><creator>Ramadan, Soha</creator><creator>Noaman, Hasnaa</creator><creator>Eldin, Amany Bahaa</creator><creator>Mostafa, Hossam</creator><creator>Nouh, Sara</creator><creator>Zaki, Asmaa</creator><creator>Abdelrahman, Mohamed</creator><creator>Abaza, Sherif</creator><creator>Kalò, Zoltàn</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221109</creationdate><title>A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt</title><author>Elezbawy, Baher ; Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader ; Németh, Bertalan ; Gamal, Mary ; Eldebeiky, Mariam ; Refaat, Remonda ; Taha, Amr ; Rabiea, Shimaa ; Abdallah, Marwa ; Ramadan, Soha ; Noaman, Hasnaa ; Eldin, Amany Bahaa ; Mostafa, Hossam ; Nouh, Sara ; Zaki, Asmaa ; Abdelrahman, Mohamed ; Abaza, Sherif ; Kalò, Zoltàn</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Availability</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Electronic implants</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health informatics</topic><topic>Implantable</topic><topic>Implants, Artificial</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>MCDA</topic><topic>Medical devices</topic><topic>Medical electronics</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical technology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Multicriteria decision analysis</topic><topic>Multiple criteria decision making</topic><topic>Multiple criterion</topic><topic>Pharmacovigilance</topic><topic>Procurement</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>Purchasing</topic><topic>Search engines</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elezbawy, Baher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Németh, Bertalan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gamal, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldebeiky, Mariam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Refaat, Remonda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taha, Amr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabiea, Shimaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdallah, Marwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramadan, Soha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noaman, Hasnaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldin, Amany Bahaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mostafa, Hossam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nouh, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaki, Asmaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelrahman, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abaza, Sherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalò, Zoltàn</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC medical informatics and decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elezbawy, Baher</au><au>Fasseeh, Ahmad Nader</au><au>Németh, Bertalan</au><au>Gamal, Mary</au><au>Eldebeiky, Mariam</au><au>Refaat, Remonda</au><au>Taha, Amr</au><au>Rabiea, Shimaa</au><au>Abdallah, Marwa</au><au>Ramadan, Soha</au><au>Noaman, Hasnaa</au><au>Eldin, Amany Bahaa</au><au>Mostafa, Hossam</au><au>Nouh, Sara</au><au>Zaki, Asmaa</au><au>Abdelrahman, Mohamed</au><au>Abaza, Sherif</au><au>Kalò, Zoltàn</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical informatics and decision making</jtitle><date>2022-11-09</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>289</epage><pages>1-289</pages><artnum>289</artnum><issn>1472-6947</issn><eissn>1472-6947</eissn><abstract>Background With the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captures and compares all implantable medical devices' attributes, to provide an objective method for choosing among the available options in Egypt. Method We conducted a systematic review and expert interviews, to identify the relevant criteria for inclusion in the tool. Subsequently, a workshop was conducted, that involved experts in procuring and tendering medical devices. Experts chose the criteria, ranked them, assigned weights and scoring functions for each criterion, and then created the draft tool. A pilot phase followed; then, another workshop was conducted to fine-tune the tool. We readjusted the tool based on experts' experience with the draft tool. Results The final tool included eight criteria, arranged according to their weightage: technical characteristics (29.4%), country of origin (19.5%), use in reference countries (14.9%), supply reliability (11.7%), previous use in tenders (9.0%), instant replacement within product variety (6.9%), pharmacovigilance (4.6%), and refund or replacement (4.0%). Each medical device was assessed on these eight criteria to achieve a final score, that was compared to the alternative devices' scores. Price is not included in the MCDA tool, but it will be added in the financial evaluation phase. Conclusion Decisionmakers could use the MCDA tool, to make evidence-based and objective decisions for purchasing implantable devices, in the Egyptian public sector. Post price evaluation, the product with the best value will be chosen for reimbursement. Highlights We created an MCDA tool to help decision makers choose between alternative implantable medical devices in Egypt. The MCDA tool includes eight criteria, where price is evaluated as a separate step. "Technical characteristics" and "country of origin" criteria carried the highest weights, thus representing approximately 50% of the decision. Keywords: MCDA, Multicriteria decision analysis, Medical devices, Implantable, Procurement</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>36352382</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12911-022-02025-y</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1472-6947
ispartof BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022-11, Vol.22 (1), p.1-289, Article 289
issn 1472-6947
1472-6947
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_2826ff6686b74cc1bbc2bc94919d1b64
source Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Availability
Decision analysis
Electronic implants
Evaluation
Health care industry
Health care policy
Health informatics
Implantable
Implants, Artificial
Literature reviews
MCDA
Medical devices
Medical electronics
Medical equipment
Medical technology
Methods
Multicriteria decision analysis
Multiple criteria decision making
Multiple criterion
Pharmacovigilance
Procurement
Prosthesis
Public sector
Purchasing
Search engines
Systematic review
Transplants & implants
Workshops
title A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T19%3A38%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20multicriteria%20decision%20analysis%20(MCDA)%20tool%20to%20purchase%20implantable%20medical%20devices%20in%20Egypt&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20informatics%20and%20decision%20making&rft.au=Elezbawy,%20Baher&rft.date=2022-11-09&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=289&rft.pages=1-289&rft.artnum=289&rft.issn=1472-6947&rft.eissn=1472-6947&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12911-022-02025-y&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA726042361%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c540t-eef1b4bd086fc1b06941bffd88635a2ccc0dab8625da95615fe16adcca607ed83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2737685760&rft_id=info:pmid/36352382&rft_galeid=A726042361&rfr_iscdi=true