Showing the full value of a treatment through a multi-criteria decision analysis

Project background

In a developed healthcare market with multiple treatment options, comparisons rely primarily on clinical trials or indirect treatment comparisons, focusing on clinical outcomes. However, for medical devices, evaluating clinical efficacy alone fails to capture the full picture. Factors such as economic impact, operational efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes are equally important for understanding the product’s value.

Recognizing that traditional metrics were underselling the impact of their asset, our client required a more comprehensive assessment of their product. They commissioned a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate their product against key comparators. This approach allowed for a nuanced analysis across multiple criteria, tailored to the unique priorities of different payer archetypes. The objective was to generate actionable evidence to support decision-making by healthcare providers, payers, and other stakeholders.

Challenges faced

The primary challenge lay in reconciling the divergent priorities of different decision-makers. Designing a framework that fairly balances clinical, economic, and operational factors is inherently complex, particularly when accounting for various requirements across multiple countries and payer archetypes. Additionally, MCDA requires careful selection and weighting of criteria, which can be subjective and must be robustly justified to gain stakeholder acceptance. Striking the right balance between methodological rigor and practical application was essential to ensure the credibility and relevance of the results for all stakeholders.

Our solution

We developed a structured MCDA framework to evaluate the client’s product relative to key comparators using a stepwise approach. First, we engaged clinical experts to identify and prioritize relevant evaluation criteria across clinical, economic, operational, and patient-centred domains. To ensure the academic and practical integrity of our framework, we partnered with a leading expert in the field to validate the methodological design. Once a consensus was reached, we applied transparent, evidence-based weighting techniques to reflect specific priorities of different stakeholders and calculated composite scores for all treatment options. The results were delivered in an intuitive, visual format to support strategic decision-making, highlighting areas where the client’s product demonstrated differentiated value. This approach allowed our client to make evidence-based decisions that accounted for a broad range of value drivers, not just clinical outcomes, providing a more holistic view of their product’s impact.