Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.

Amélie Dubromel, Marie-Audrey Duvinage-Vonesch, Loïc Geffroy, Claude Dussart
{"title":"Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.","authors":"Amélie Dubromel, Marie-Audrey Duvinage-Vonesch, Loïc Geffroy, Claude Dussart","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2020.1810905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"1810905"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/c7/ZJMA_8_1810905.PMC7482895.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1810905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues.

Materials and methods: A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory.

Results: We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings.

Conclusion: Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗决策中的组织因素:文献综述。
背景:在医疗保健领域,组织方面的问题很少被考虑。然而,人们逐渐将其视为决策过程以及临床和经济层面的关键因素之一。我们的首要目标是确定用于评估医疗创新的组织影响的标准。我们的次要目标是将这些标准整理成一份清单,以支持决策者为其复杂的决策问题选择相关标准:我们于 2019 年 6 月使用 Medline 数据库进行了搜索。确定了 1990 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月间发表的记录。此外,还查阅了所收录文章的作者所引用的出版物,以及在搜索过程中发现的卫生技术评估机构、单位或学会的网站。确定的标准以清单的形式列出:我们选取了 107 项证据记录,这些证据大多发表于 2000 年代之后。我们确定了 636 项标准,并将其分为五类:人员、任务、结构、技术和周围环境:标准选择是任何多标准决策分析(MCDA)的关键步骤。这项工作是开发经过验证的 MCDA 方法的第一步,该方法可用于评估医疗创新对组织的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Value of Further Investment in R&D Using Mixed Methods: A Case Study of Biosensor-Integrated Arteriovenous Grafts. Managing Pharmaceutical Costs in Health Systems: A Review of Affordability, Accessibility and Sustainability Strategies. Operational Efficiency of Public Hospitals in Greece During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis Using DEA and AHP Models. Gatekeeping or Provider Choice for Sustainable Health Systems? A Literature Review on Their Impact on Efficiency, Access, and Quality of Services. Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1