Sammenlign metoder

	Multi-Criteria Policy Analysis	Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Policy
Fagområde	Public Policy	Public Policy
Familie	MCDM	Process / pipeline
Oprindelsesår	2002	2015
Ophavsperson	Valerie Belton & Theodor Stewart (synthesis); MCDA tradition	Health-economics and program-evaluation tradition (Drummond et al.; Gold et al.)
Type	Multi-criteria decision analysis applied to policy appraisal	Economic evaluation comparing cost per unit of effect
Oprindelig kilde	Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 9780792375050	Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199665877
Aliasser	Multi-Criteria Analysis for Policy, MCDA Policy Appraisal, MCA in Policy, Multi-Criteria Policy Appraisal	Policy Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, CEA for Policy, Cost-Utility Analysis in Policy
Relaterede	3	4
Resumé	Multi-criteria policy analysis applies multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to appraise and rank policy options against several, often conflicting, objectives that cannot be reduced to a single money metric. Each option is scored on a set of explicit criteria — economic, social, environmental, distributional — the criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance, and the scores are aggregated into an overall value that ranks the options. Set out comprehensively in Belton and Stewart's 2002 textbook and operationalised for government in the UK's widely used Multi-Criteria Analysis Manual, the approach makes the trade-offs in a policy decision transparent and structured rather than implicit.	Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an economic evaluation that compares competing policies or programs by their cost relative to a single, common measure of effect — lives saved, cases averted, years of education gained, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Rather than valuing outcomes in money, CEA expresses results as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): the extra cost of one option per extra unit of outcome it delivers compared with the next-best alternative. Codified in standard references such as Drummond and colleagues' Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes and the US Panel's Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, CEA is the dominant appraisal tool for health and increasingly for other public programs with a shared outcome metric.