MCDA Tool Adoption in Egypt: Room for Sustainability and Accessibility
Author(s)
Gihan H. Elsisi, Sr., BSc, MSc, PhD1, Mohamed Farghaly, PhD2, Shady Mansy, MD3, Ahmed El Bassiouny, MD4, Neveen Gado, MD5, Omneya malek, MSc3, Noha Elrayes, MSc3, Nouran Desouky, MSc6, Ahmed Gaballah, MSc7, sherif Askar, MSc7, Tamer Hefzy, MSc7, Riad Armanious, MSc7, Ramy R. Ghaly, MD5.
1Ass prof, The American University in Cairo, cairo, Egypt, 2Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3HIO, Cairo, Egypt, 4Fac of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt, 5Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 6Egypt Health Authority, Cairo, Egypt, 7Eva Pharma, Cairo, Egypt.
1Ass prof, The American University in Cairo, cairo, Egypt, 2Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3HIO, Cairo, Egypt, 4Fac of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt, 5Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 6Egypt Health Authority, Cairo, Egypt, 7Eva Pharma, Cairo, Egypt.
OBJECTIVES:
Multi- criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool can guide the decision makers to choose between alternative treatments based on multiple criteria. Our main objective is to identify the most important criteria that can define and position high quality generics versus branded medications according to the Egyptian local context.
METHODS: A focused group of Egyptian payers, clinicians and experts from Dubai health Authority in Emirates and HAS in France adapted an evident MCDA tool relevant to the Egyptian health care sector. A comprehensive list of quantitative criteria, qualitative domains, and economic considerations developed based on the available literature. Six criteria relevant to the local context were validated from the experts. A Delphi panel was constructed and a consensus was reached by quasi-Delphi panel approach.
RESULTS: The prioritized six criteria are therapeutic area (15%), cost (28%), equivalence with the reference product (20%), previous use in local settings (12%), macroeconomic benefit (10%), followed by the supplier reliability (15%) were prioritized by using a 3-phased approach, including a targeted literature review, evaluation, and discussion among relevant stakeholders, scientific experts and key opinion leaders.
CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA tool could be used to improve the transparency and consistency of evidence-based decision making among the Egyptian population. This tool is expected to help decision-makers improve their process and attain better health outcomes for Egyptian patients, and enable both healthcare system sustainability and patient accessibility.
Multi- criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool can guide the decision makers to choose between alternative treatments based on multiple criteria. Our main objective is to identify the most important criteria that can define and position high quality generics versus branded medications according to the Egyptian local context.
METHODS: A focused group of Egyptian payers, clinicians and experts from Dubai health Authority in Emirates and HAS in France adapted an evident MCDA tool relevant to the Egyptian health care sector. A comprehensive list of quantitative criteria, qualitative domains, and economic considerations developed based on the available literature. Six criteria relevant to the local context were validated from the experts. A Delphi panel was constructed and a consensus was reached by quasi-Delphi panel approach.
RESULTS: The prioritized six criteria are therapeutic area (15%), cost (28%), equivalence with the reference product (20%), previous use in local settings (12%), macroeconomic benefit (10%), followed by the supplier reliability (15%) were prioritized by using a 3-phased approach, including a targeted literature review, evaluation, and discussion among relevant stakeholders, scientific experts and key opinion leaders.
CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA tool could be used to improve the transparency and consistency of evidence-based decision making among the Egyptian population. This tool is expected to help decision-makers improve their process and attain better health outcomes for Egyptian patients, and enable both healthcare system sustainability and patient accessibility.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HPR140
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, Organizational Practices
Topic Subcategory
Reimbursement & Access Policy
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas