Picture of server farm and IT infrastructure

Where technology & law meet: Open Access research on data security & its regulation ...

Strathprints makes available Open Access scholarly outputs exploring both the technical aspects of computer security, but also the regulation of existing or emerging technologies. A research specialism of the Department of Computer & Information Sciences (CIS) is computer security. Researchers explore issues surrounding web intrusion detection techniques, malware characteristics, textual steganography and trusted systems. Digital forensics and cyber crime are also a focus.

Meanwhile, the School of Law and its Centre for Internet Law & Policy undertake studies on Internet governance. An important component of this work is consideration of privacy and data protection questions and the increasing focus on cybercrime and 'cyberterrorism'.

Explore the Open Access research by CIS on computer security or the School of Law's work on law, technology and regulation. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Treacle and smallpox : two tests for multi-criteria decision analysis models in health technology assessment

Morton, Alec (2017) Treacle and smallpox : two tests for multi-criteria decision analysis models in health technology assessment. Value in Health, 30 (3). pp. 512-515. ISSN 1524-4733

Text (Morton-VH-2016-two-tests-for-multi-criteria-decision-analysis-models-in-health-technology-assessment)
Accepted Author Manuscript
License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 logo

Download (475kB) | Preview


Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is, rightly, receiving increasing attention in Health Technology Assessment. However, a distinguishing feature of the health domain is that technologies must actually improve health, and good performance on other criteria cannot compensate for failure to do so. We argue for two reasonable tests for MCDA models: the treacle test (can a winning intervention be incompletely ineffective?) and the smallpox test (can a winning intervention be for a disease which no one suffers from?). We explore why models might fail such tests (as the models of some existing published studies would do) and offer some suggestions as to how practice should be improved.