IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v7y2014i2p129-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Author

Listed:
  • J. Hummel

    ()

  • John Bridges
  • Maarten IJzerman

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. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Suggested Citation

  • J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:7:y:2014:i:2:p:129-140
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    2. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    3. Kuenz Murphy, Catherine, 1993. "Limits on the analytic hierarchy process from its consistency index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 138-139, February.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka & Dieter Balkenborg & Todd Kaplan, 2005. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Discussion Papers 0506, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    5. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, 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. Sue Ellen Taelman & Davide Tonini & Alexander Wandl & Jo Dewulf, 2018. "A Holistic Sustainability Framework for Waste Management in European Cities: Concept Development," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(7), pages 1-33, June.
    2. Das, Ridoy & Wang, Yue & Putrus, Ghanim & Kotter, Richard & Marzband, Mousa & Herteleer, Bert & Warmerdam, Jos, 2020. "Multi-objective techno-economic-environmental optimisation of electric vehicle for energy services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:patien:v:7:y:2014:i:2:p:129-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.