Display options
Cite
Hummel JM, Bridges JF, IJzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient. 2014;7(2):129-40doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7.
Hummel, J. M., Bridges, J. F., & IJzerman, M. J. (2014). Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. The patient, 7(2), 129-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
Hummel, J Marjan, et al. "Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial." The patient vol. 7,2 (2014): 129-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
Hummel JM, Bridges JF, IJzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient. 2014;7(2):129-40. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7. PMID: 24623191.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Patient. 2014;7(2):129-40. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7.

Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial.

The patient

J Marjan Hummel, John F P Bridges, Maarten J IJzerman

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, [email protected].

PMID: 24623191 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been increasingly applied as a technique for multi-criteria decision analysis in healthcare. The AHP can aid decision makers in selecting the most valuable technology for patients, while taking into account multiple, and even conflicting, decision criteria. This tutorial illustrates the procedural steps of the AHP in supporting group decision making about new healthcare technology, including (1) identifying the decision goal, decision criteria, and alternative healthcare technologies to compare, (2) structuring the decision criteria, (3) judging the value of the alternative technologies on each decision criterion, (4) judging the importance of the decision criteria, (5) calculating group judgments, (6) analyzing the inconsistency in judgments, (7) calculating the overall value of the technologies, and (8) conducting sensitivity analyses. The AHP is illustrated via a hypothetical example, adapted from an empirical AHP analysis on the benefits and risks of tissue regeneration to repair small cartilage lesions in the knee.

References

  1. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 Mar 13;6:14 - PubMed
  2. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009 Dec;13(6):497-502 - PubMed
  3. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):457-62 - PubMed
  4. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2010 Dec;7(2):148-57 - PubMed
  5. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Apr;37(3):215-26 - PubMed
  6. Risk Anal. 2009 Jan;29(1):26-33 - PubMed
  7. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):348-53 - PubMed
  8. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jan;33(1):59-70 - PubMed
  9. Med Devices (Auckl). 2011;4:107-15 - PubMed
  10. Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1172-81 - PubMed
  11. Patient. 2012;5(4):225-37 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types