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...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC medical informatics and decision making 2022-11, Vol.22 (1), p.1-289, Article 289 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 |