IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v6y2016i1d10.1186_s13561-016-0130-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring patients’ priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Schmidt

    (Leibniz University of Hannover)

  • Ana Babac

    (Leibniz University of Hannover)

  • Frédéric Pauer

    (Leibniz University of Hannover)

  • Kathrin Damm

    (Leibniz University of Hannover)

  • J-Matthias von der Schulenburg

    (Leibniz University of Hannover
    Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover (BREATH), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL))

Abstract

Background Identifying patient priorities and preference measurements have gained importance as patients claim a more active role in health care decision making. Due to the variety of existing methods, it is challenging to define an appropriate method for each decision problem. This study demonstrates the impact of the non-standardized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method on priorities, and compares it with Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) and ranking card methods. Methods We investigated AHP results for different Consistency Ratio (CR) thresholds, aggregation methods, and sensitivity analyses. We also compared criteria rankings of AHP with BWS and ranking cards results by Kendall’s tau b. Results The sample for our decision analysis consisted of 39 patients with rare diseases and mean age of 53.82 years. The mean weights of the two groups of CR ≤ 0.1 and CR ≤ 0.2 did not differ significantly. For the aggregation by individual priority (AIP) method, the CR was higher than for aggregation by individual judgment (AIJ). In contrast, the weights of AIJ were similar compared to AIP, but some criteria’s rankings differed. Weights aggregated by geometric mean, median, and mean showed deviating results and rank reversals. Sensitivity analyses showed instable rankings. Moderate to high correlations between the rankings resulting from AHP and BWS. Limitations Limitations were the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the patients with different rare diseases. Conclusion In the AHP method, the number of included patients is associated with the threshold of the CR and choice of the aggregation method, whereas both directions of influence could be demonstrated. Therefore, it is important to implement standards for the AHP method. The choice of method should depend on the trade-off between the burden for participants and possibilities for analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina Schmidt & Ana Babac & Frédéric Pauer & Kathrin Damm & J-Matthias von der Schulenburg, 2016. "Measuring patients’ priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:6:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-016-0130-6
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-016-0130-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-016-0130-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-016-0130-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    2. Anik, Md Asif Hasan & Sadeek, Soumik Nafis & Hossain, Moinul & Kabir, Shafquat, 2020. "A framework for involving the young generation in transportation planning using social media and crowd sourcing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-18.
    3. Tim Gruchmann & Annika Mies & Thomas Neukirchen & Stefan Gold, 2021. "Tensions in sustainable warehousing: including the blue-collar perspective on automation and ergonomic workplace design," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 151-178, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    2. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    3. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    6. Perolia, Daniel R. & Collart, Alba J. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2016. "Consumer Preferences for Delacata Catfish: A Choice Experiment with Tasting," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Thomas Ward & Ruben E. Mujica-Mota & Anne E. Spencer & Antonieta Medina-Lara, 2022. "Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 45-64, January.
    8. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    9. Ivan Sever & Miroslav Verbič & Eva Klaric Sever, 2020. "Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best–Worst Choice Approach," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 97-107, February.
    10. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    11. Eve Wittenberg & Monica Bharel & Adrianna Saada & Emely Santiago & John Bridges & Linda Weinreb, 2015. "Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best–Worst Scaling Survey," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 455-467, October.
    12. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    14. Yejun Choi & Dayton M. Lambert & Kimberly L. Jensen & Christopher D. Clark & Burton C. English & McKenzie Thomas, 2020. "Rank-Ordered Analysis of Consumer Preferences for the Attributes of a Value-Added Biofuel Co-Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, March.
    15. N. Flynn, Terry & J. Peters, Tim & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 34-43.
    16. Seda Erdem & Danny Campbell, 2017. "Preferences for public involvement in health service decisions: a comparison between best-worst scaling and trio-wise stated preference elicitation techniques," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(9), pages 1107-1123, December.
    17. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    19. Buttorff, Christine & Trujillo, Antonio J. & Diez-Canseco, Francisco & Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio & Miranda, J. Jaime, 2015. "Evaluating consumer preferences for healthy eating from Community Kitchens in low-income urban areas: A discrete choice experiment of Comedores Populares in Peru," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Amanda Working & Mohammed Alqawba & Norou Diawara, 2020. "Dynamic Attribute-Level Best Worst Discrete Choice Experiments," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(2), pages 1-1, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:6:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-016-0130-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.