IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/ecothe/v55y2017i1p121-142n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Rađenović Žarko
  • Veselinović Ivana

    (University of Niš, Faculty of Economics, Serbia)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse and estimate the efficiency of health information systems in the provision of health care services. The evaluation of health information systems is conducted in the case of three most widely used softwares in the electronic health care. This evaluation is based on multi-criteria analysis of the health information systems efficiency using the AHP-TOPSIS method. This method, based on common attributes and their respective values for all three software solutions, individually determines the best rated software solution. Top rated software solution of electronic health care is not necessarily the best for the implementation and development, given the fact that each health care organisation has its own characteristics. Functional and evolutionary-minded hardware and software applicative infrastructure contributes to the consistency of electronic health concept that all system users provides a comfortable software solutions, which ultimately leads to the timely and quick medical services in real time.

Suggested Citation

  • Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:ecothe:v:55:y:2017:i:1:p:121-142:n:8
    DOI: 10.1515/ethemes-2017-0008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ethemes-2017-0008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ethemes-2017-0008?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. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    2. Ma, Jian & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Huang, Li-Hua, 1999. "A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 397-404, January.
    3. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Valentinas Podvezko, 2016. "Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 267-283, March.
    4. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    5. Krstic, Bojan & Petrovic, Jelena & Stanišić, Tanja, 2015. "Analysis Of Key Indicators Of Economic Dimensions Of Spas' Sustainable Development In Serbia As Tourism Destinations," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 61(3), pages 1-12, September.
    6. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    7. Wei, Chun-Chin & Chien, Chen-Fu & Wang, Mao-Jiun J., 2005. "An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 47-62, April.
    8. Curtis, Ian A., 2004. "Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 163-194, October.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    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. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Anas A. Makki & Ammar Y. Alqahtani, 2023. "Capturing the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak on the Financial Performance Disparities in the Energy Sector: A Hybrid MCDM-Based Evaluation Approach," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.

    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. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    2. Alaa Alden Al Mohamed & Sobhi Al Mohamed & Moustafa Zino, 2023. "Application of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model in selecting pandemic hospital site," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    4. Tom Pape, 2020. "Prioritising data items for business analytics: Framework and application to human resources," Papers 2012.13813, arXiv.org.
    5. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Khoveyni, Mohammad, 2017. "A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 93-105.
    6. Li, Yaxin & Ding, Yuxin & Guo, Yuliang & Cui, Haizhou & Gao, Haiyi & Zhou, Ziyu & (Aaron) Zhang, Nanbo & Zhu, Siyao & Chen, Faan, 2023. "An integrated decision model with reliability to support transport safety system analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    7. Adiel T. Almeida-Filho & Adiel T. Almeida & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2017. "A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 65-83, December.
    8. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    9. Tom Koch & Mark Ridgley, 2000. "The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 379-392, September.
    10. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    12. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    13. Alpana Agarwal & Divina Raghav, 2023. "Analysing Determinants of Employee Performance Based on Reverse Mentoring and Employer Branding Using Analytic Hierarchical Process," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 48(3), pages 343-358, August.
    14. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Andre Bender & Allan Din & Philippe Favarger & Martin Hoesli & Janne Laakso, 1997. "An Analysis of Perceptions Concerning the Environmental Quality of Housing in Geneva," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 34(3), pages 503-513, March.
    16. S H Choi & S M Bae, 2009. "Strategic information systems selection with incomplete preferences: a case of a Korean electronics company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 180-190, February.
    17. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    18. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    19. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Prabhat Kumar & Puneet Tandon, 2019. "A paradigm for customer-driven product design approach using extended axiomatic design," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 589-603, February.

    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:vrs:ecothe:v:55:y:2017:i:1:p:121-142:n:8. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.