Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 369-375

  Danner, Marion ^a   Hummel, J Marjan ^b   Volz, Fabian ^a   Van Manen, Jeannette G ^b   Wiegard, Beate ^a   Dintsios, Charalabos Markos ^a   Bastian, Hilda ^a,c   Gerber, Andreas ^a   Ijzerman, Maarten J ^b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Health technology assessment (HTA); Medical decision making; Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA); Patient involvement; Patient preferences

Indexed keywords

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA); MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; PATIENT INVOLVEMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCES;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION MAKING; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; RATING;

PATIENT TREATMENT;

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; GERMANY; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84858992519     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000523     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC. A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;187:1422-1428.
2. Barzilai J, Golany B. AHP rank several, normalization and aggregation rules. Inf Syst Oper Res. 1994;32:57-64.
3. Benaim C, Perennou DA, Pelissier JY, Daures JP. Using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for weighting items of a measurement scale: A pilot study. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58:59-63.
4. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30-35. (Pubitemid 46648297)
5. Dolan JG. Shared decision-making - transferring research into practice: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:418-425.
6. Dolan JG, Bordley DR. Individualized decision-making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Reliability, validity and clinical usefulness. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:322-322.
7. Dolan JG, Isselhardt BJ Jr, Cappuccio JD. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in medical decision making: A tutorial. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:40-50. (Pubitemid 19034092)
8. 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;26:334-340.
9. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497-499. (Pubitemid 44622970)
10. Hummel JM, IJzermann MJ. The use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in health care decision making. Enschede: University of Twente; 2009.
11. Ijzerman M, van Til J, Snoek G. Comparison of two multicriteria decision trechniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient. 2008;1:265-273.
12. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Bupropion, Mirtazapin und Reboxetin bei der Behandlungder Depression: Abschlussbericht; Auftrag A05-20C; IQWiG-Bericht 68. Köln: IQWiG; 2009. http://www.iqwig.de/download/A05-20C-Abschlussbericht-Bupropion- Mirtazapin-und-Reboxetin-bei-Depressionen.pdf (accessed May 26, 2011).
13. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Selektive Serotonin- und Noradrenalin-Wiederaufnahmehemmer (SNRI) bei Patienten mit Depressionen: Abschlussbericht; Auftrag A05-20A; Version 1.1; IQWiG-Bericht 55. Köln: IQWiG; 2010. http://www.iqwig.de/ download/A05-20A-Abschlussbericht-SNRI-bei-Patienten-mit-Depressionen-V1-1.pdf (accessed May 26, 2011).
14. Kallas Z, Lambarraa F, Gil JM. A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus choice experiments. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22:181-192.
15. Liang L, Wang G, Hua Z, Zhang B. Mapping verbal responses to numerical scales in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2008;42:46-55.
16. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194-207. (Pubitemid 351232135)
17. Mulye R. An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Mak. 1998;11:263-280.
18. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public references for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1-186.
19. Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol. 1977;15:234-281.
20. Saaty TL. Group decision making and the AHP. In: Golden BL, Wasil WA, Harker PT, eds. The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. Berlin: Springer; 1989:59-67.
21. Saaty TL. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:83-98.
22. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Wash criteria should not be ignored. Int J Manage Decis Mak. 2006;7:180-188. (Pubitemid 43559415)
23. Scheibler F, Scheike I, Dintsios CM. Patientenpartizipation bei Festlegung und Gewichtung von Behandlungszielen: Status quo und Entwicklungspotenziale. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102:373-377.
24. Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R. Solving multiattribute design problems with Analytic Hierarchy Process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res. 2005;164:760-777. (Pubitemid 40114595)
25. Vogt F, Schwappach DLB, Bridges JFP. Accounting for tastes: A German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:419-423. (Pubitemid 43765212)