A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation

Patient

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 45-56

  Ijzerman, Maarten J ^a   Van Til, Janine A ^a   Bridges, John F P ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Decision making; Foot deformities; Patient preference; Stroke.

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; ARTICLE; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; FOOT ORTHOSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPROSTHESIS; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; ORTHOPEDIC SHOE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STROKE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; STROKE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84856324428     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11587140-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bridges JF, Cohen JP, Grist PG, et al. International experience with comparative effectiveness research: case studies from England/Wales and Germany. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res 2010; 22: 29-50
2. Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care 2010 Jun; 48 (6 Suppl.): S7-8
3. Gerber A, Dintsios CM. A distorted picture of IQWiG methodology [letter]. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010 Jan-Feb; 29 (1): 220-1; author reply 221
4. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010 Jul; 26 (3): 334-40
5. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence based patient-centered healthcare. Patient 2010;3(4):229-48
6. Belton V, Steward TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approaC.H. London: Kluwer Academic Press, 2003
7. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661-77 (Pubitemid 351989058)
8. Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, et al. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy: report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health 2010 Aug; 13 (5): 657-66
9. Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, et al. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ 2010 Sep 1; 19 (10): 1117-27
10. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting and resource allocation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1980
11. Dolan JG. Shared decision-making - transferring research into practice: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns 2008 Dec; 73 (3): 418-25
12. van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, et al. The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008 Mar; 89 (3): 457-62 (Pubitemid 351273175)
13. Hummel JM, van Rossum W, Verkerke GJ, et al. Medical technology assessment: the use of the analytic hierarchy process as a tool for multidisciplinary evaluation of medical devices. Int J Artif Organs 2000 Nov; 23 (11): 782-7 (Pubitemid 32010994)
14. Shin T, Kim C-B, Ahn Y-H, et al. The comparative evaluation of expanded national immunization policies in Korea using an analytic hierarchy process. Vaccine 2009 Jan 29; 27 (5): 792-802
15. Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 927-44 (Pubitemid 44251229)
16. Mulye R. An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Mak 1998; 11: 263-80
17. MeiXner M, Scholz S, Decker R. AHP versus ACA: an empirical comparison. In: Preisach C, Burkhardt H, editors. Data analysis: machine learning and applications. Berlin: Springer, 2008: 447-54
18. Scholl A. ML, Helm R, Steiner M. Solving multi-attribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison. Eur J Operat Res 2005; 164: 760-77 (Pubitemid 40114595)
19. Weber M, Borcherding K. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Operat Res 1993; 67: 1-12
20. van Til JA, Dolan JG, Stiggelbout AM, et al. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Patient 2008; 1 (2): 127-35
21. IJzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008; 1 (4): 265-73
22. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics, 2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2009; 119 (3): 480-6
23. Expert Choice. Expert choice 11.5 [computer program]. Desktop version. Arlington (VA): Expert Choice, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.expertchoice. com/products-services/[Accessed 2011 Oct 5]
24. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: for better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004 Oct; 5 (3): 199-202 (Pubitemid 39382517)
25. Sawtooth Software. Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) [computer program]. SSI Web 7.0.26. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/products/cbc/[Accessed 2011 Oct 5]
26. Edwards W, Barron FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Org Behav Human Dec Proc 1994; 60: 306-25
27. Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. The use of the analytic hierarchy process in health care decision making. Enschede: Health Technology & Services Research, 2009
28. Sloane E, Liberatore M, Nydick R, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an iterative, multidisciplinary, microeconomic health technology assessment. Comput Oper Res 2003; 30 (10): 1447-65 (Pubitemid 36594849)
29. Hatcher M. Voting and priorities in health care decision making, portrayed through a group decision support system, using analytic hierarchy process. J Med Syst 1994 Oct; 18 (5): 267-88 (Pubitemid 24379734)
30. Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, et al. Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011 Feb; 89 (2): 217-24
31. European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 2 report: applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. London: EMA, 2010 Aug [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eM.A.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Report/2010/10/ WC500097750.pdf [Accessed 2011 Aug 28]
32. Kallas Z, Lambarraa F, Gil JM. A stated preference analysis comparing the analytical hierarchy process versus choice experiments. Food Qual Pref 2011; 22 (2): 181-92
33. Helm R, Scholl A, Manthey L, et al. Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods. Int J Prod Dev 2004 Jan 1; 1 (1): 12-29
34. Barzilai J. On the decomposition of value functions. Op Res Lett 1998; 22 (4-5): 159-70 (Pubitemid 128676374)
35. Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, et al. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: the next ten years. Manag Sci 1992; 38 (5): 645-54
36. Dolan JG. Can decision analysis adequately represent clinical problems? J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(3):277-84 (Pubitemid 20074212)