PMC4606085_01
Rank acceptability indices for the base case scenario.
BMRI2015-191809.003.jpg
PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.003.jpg
fig3
For the preference-free analysis (Figure 3), we found that secondary prevention has a very low (<0.05) first rank acceptability index, making it unlikely to be optimal for any decision maker.
Rank acceptability indices when improvement of commercial headroom is favored.
BMRI2015-191809.004.jpg
PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.004.jpg
fig4
Primary prevention was very likely to be the best alternative when maximizing the commercial headroom available is considered more important than minimizing the barriers and constraints to utilize this headroom (Figure 4).
Rank acceptability indices when avoidance of barriers is favored.
BMRI2015-191809.005.jpg
PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.005.jpg
fig5
Contrarily, tertiary prevention of microvascular complications and tertiary prevention of macrovascular complications were clearly the preferred strategies when having to deal with lesser obstacles is preferred over potential higher gains in terms of the objectives stated by the stakeholders (Figure 5).