Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Kevin Marsh (a1), J. Jaime Caro (a2), Erica Zaiser (a3), James Heywood (a4) and Alaa Hamed (a5)...


Objectives: Patient preferences should be a central consideration in healthcare decision making. However, stories of patients challenging regulatory and reimbursement decisions has led to questions on whether patient voices are being considered sufficiently during those decision making processes. This has led some to argue that it is necessary to quantify patient preferences before they can be adequately considered.

Methods: This study considers the lessons from the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for efforts to quantify patient preferences. It defines MCDA and summarizes the benefits it can provide to decision makers, identifies examples of MCDAs that have involved patients, and summarizes good practice guidelines as they relate to quantifying patient preferences.

Results: The guidance developed to support the use of MCDA in healthcare provide some useful considerations for the quantification of patient preferences, namely that researchers should give appropriate consideration to: the heterogeneity of patient preferences, and its relevance to decision makers; the cognitive challenges posed by different elicitation methods; and validity of the results they produce. Furthermore, it is important to consider how the relevance of these considerations varies with the decision being supported.

Conclusions: The MCDA literature holds important lessons for how patient preferences should be quantified to support healthcare decision making.



Hide All
1. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334340.
2. Fleurence, R, Selby, JV, Odom-Walker, K, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:393400.
3. Fowler, FJ Jr, CA, Levin, Sepucha, KR. Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:699706.
4. Egbrink, MO, Ijzerman, M. The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014;2:22761.
5. Frosch, DL. The patient is the most important member of the team. BMJ. 2015;350:g7767.
6. Agoritsas, T, Heen, AF, Brandt, L, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: The pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.
7. Pollack, A. FDA panel recommends M.S. drug despite lethal risk. The New York Times. New York, NY; 2006.
8. Fagerlin, A, Zikmund-Fisher, BJ, Ubel, PA. Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:14361443.
9. Los Angeles Times. FDA panel backs ‘pink Viagra’ for sexual dysfunction in women. Los Angeles Times; 2015.
10. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). National priorities for research and research agenda. 2012. (accessed November 29, 2017).
11. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pilot phase to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. EMA/372554/2014 – rev. 1. 2014. (accessed November 29, 2017).
12. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FAQs about the patient representative program. 2015. (accessed November 29, 2017).
13. deBronkart, D. From patient centred to people powered: Autonomy on the rise. BMJ. 2015;350:h148.
14. Silverstein A. Patient commentary: What I need to self manage my care. BMJ. 2015;350:h248.
15. Braddock, CH III. The emerging importance and relevance of shared decision making to clinical practice. Med Decis Making. 2010;30: 5S-7S.
16. Kravitz, RL, Melnikow, J. Engaging patients in medical decision making. BMJ. 2001;323:584585.
17. Davies, E, Cleary, PD. Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:428-332.
18. Ubel PA. Beyond costs and benefits: Understanding how patients make health care decisions. Oncologist. 2010;15 (Suppl 1):510.
19. Weernink, MGM, Janus, SIM, van Til, JA, et al. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation methods in healthcare decision making. Pharm Med. 2014;28:175185.
20. 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;19:125137.
21. Belton, V, Stewart, TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
22. Dodgson, JS, Spackman, M, Pearman, A, et al. Multi-criteria analysis: A manual. London, UK: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
23. Baltussen, R, Niessen, L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006; 4:14.
24. Devlin, NJ, Sussex, J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: Methods and processes. 2011. (accessed November 29, 2017).
25. Marsh, K, Lanitis, T, Neasham, D, et al. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:345365.
26. Thokala, P, Duenas, A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15:11721181.
27. Danner, M, Hummel, JM, Volz, F, et al. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:369375.
28. Hummel, MJ, Volz, F, van Manen, JG, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: Prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5:225237.
29. Muhlbacher, AC, Bridges, JF, Bethge, S, et al. Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18:155165.
30. Dolan, JG. Shared decision-making–transferring research into practice: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:418425.
31. Mulley, AG, Trimble, C, Elwyn, G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: Patients' preferences matter. BMJ. 2012;345:e6572.
32. Marewski, JN, Gigerenzer, G. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14:7789.
33. Airoldi, M, Morton, A, Smith, J, Bevan, G. Working paper no. 7. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: A socio-technical approach. 2011. (accessed November 29, 2017).
34. Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, et al. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: Applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.
35. Sussex, J, Rollet, P, Garau, M, et al. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16:11631169.
36. Youngkong, S, Teerawattananon, Y, Tantivess, S, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6.
37. Dolan, JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8:334344.
38. Dolan, JG, Boohaker, E, Allison, J, et al. Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:5970.
39. Hummel, JM, Snoek, GJ, van Til, JA, van Rossum, W, Ijzerman, MJ. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:635644.
40. Broekhuizen, H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, CG, Hauber, AB, Jansen, JP, IJzerman, MJ. Estimating the value of medical treatments to patients using probabilistic multi criteria decision analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:102.
41. De Montis, A, De Toro, P, Droste-Franke, B, et al. Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner, M, Spash, C, Stagl, S, eds. Alternatives for environmental evaluation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2005.
42. 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;19:113.
43. Keeney, RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res. 2002;50:935945.



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed