case_images: PMC4606085_01
case_images: Rank acceptability indices for the base case scenario.
case_images: BMRI2015-191809.003.jpg
case_images: PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.003.jpg
case_images: fig3
case_images: 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.
case_images: Rank acceptability indices when improvement of commercial headroom is favored.
case_images: BMRI2015-191809.004.jpg
case_images: PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.004.jpg
case_images: fig4
case_images: 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).
case_images: Rank acceptability indices when avoidance of barriers is favored.
case_images: BMRI2015-191809.005.jpg
case_images: PMC4606085_01_BMRI2015-191809.005.jpg
case_images: fig5
case_images: 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).