A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke Rehabilitation

IJzerman, Maarten J.; Til, Janine Astrid van; Bridges, John F.P.

doi:10.2165/11587140-000000000-00000

Cited by 59 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An important advantage of the analytic hierarchy process is that it measures the degree to which judgments are inconsistent and establishes an acceptable tolerance level for the degree of inconsistency. Other advantages and the disadvantages of the method have been broadly described previously [12,14]. Several authors have discussed the use and application of the analytic hierarchy process in health and medical decision making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Medicare Patients: Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Díaz-Ledezma¹,

Lichstein²,

Parvızı³

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the setting of finite healthcare resources, developing cost-efficient strategies for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis is paramount. The current levels of knowledge allow for PJI diagnostic recommendations based on scientific evidence but do not consider the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different diagnostic alternatives. Questions/purposes We determined the best diagnostic strategy for knee and hip PJI in the ambulatory setting for Medicare patients, utilizing benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks evaluation through multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Methods The PJI diagnostic definition supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society was employed for the MCDA. Using a preclinical model, we evaluated three diagnostic strategies that can be conducted in a Medicare patient seen in the outpatient clinical setting complaining of a painful TKA or THA. Strategies were (1) screening with serum markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]/ C-reactive protein [CRP]) followed by arthrocentesis in positive cases, (2) immediate arthrocentesis, and (3) serum markers requested simultaneously with arthrocentesis. MCDA was conducted through the analytic hierarchy process, comparing the diagnostic strategies in terms of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Results Strategy 1 was the best alternative to diagnose knee PJI among Medicare patients (normalized value: 0.490), followed by Strategy 3 (normalized value: 0.403) and then Strategy 2 (normalized value: 0.106). The same ranking of alternatives was observed for the hip PJI model (normalized value: 0.487, 0.405, and 0.107, respectively). The sensitivity analysis found this sequence to be robust with respect to benefits, opportunities, and risks. However, if during the decisionmaking process, cost savings was given a priority of higher than 54%, the ranking for the preferred diagnostic strategy changed. Conclusions After considering the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different available alternatives, our preclinical model supports the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations regarding the use of serum markers (ESR/CRP) before arthrocentesis as the best diagnostic strategy for PJI among Medicare patients. Level of Evidence Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Medicare Patients: Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Díaz-Ledezma¹,

Lichstein²,

Parvızı³

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This ratio is called consistency ratio (CR). A CR value ≤ 0.1 is considered appropriate [43] - [44]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A contrast between DEMATEL-ANP and ANP methods for six sigma project selection: a case study in healthcare industry

Ortíz

Felizzola

Isaza

2015

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe project selection process is a crucial step for healthcare organizations at the moment of implementing six sigma programs in both administrative and caring processes. However, six-sigma project selection is often defined as a decision making process with interaction and feedback between criteria; so that it is necessary to explore different methods to help healthcare companies to determine the Six-sigma projects that provide the maximum benefits. This paper describes the application of both ANP (Analytic Network process) and DEMATEL (Decision Making trial and evaluation laboratory)-ANP in a public medical centre to establish the most suitable six sigma project and finally, these methods were compared to evaluate their performance in the decision making process.MethodsANP and DEMATEL-ANP were used to evaluate 6 six sigma project alternatives under an evaluation model composed by 3 strategies, 4 criteria and 15 sub-criteria. Judgement matrixes were completed by the six sigma team whose participants worked in different departments of the medical centre.ResultsThe improving of care opportunity in obstetric outpatients was elected as the most suitable six sigma project with a score of 0,117 as contribution to the organization goals. DEMATEL-ANP performed better at decision making process since it reduced the error probability due to interactions and feedback.ConclusionsANP and DEMATEL-ANP effectively supported six sigma project selection processes, helping to create a complete framework that guarantees the prioritization of projects that provide maximum benefits to healthcare organizations. As DEMATEL- ANP performed better, it should be used by practitioners involved in decisions related to the implementation of six sigma programs in healthcare sector accompanied by the adequate identification of the evaluation criteria that support the decision making model. Thus, this comparative study contributes to choosing more effective approaches in this field. Suggestions of further work are also proposed so that these methods can be applied more adequate in six sigma project selection processes in healthcare.

show abstract

“…Compared to these other methods, the AHP seems to be more flexible (Ijzerman et al, 2008) and robust (Scholl et al, 2005), especially when an assessment involves many attributes (Mulye, 1998). However, other studies highlighted some limits of the AHP when proper tools are not utilized (Ijzerman, et al, 2012). The AHP method consisted in the seven main steps (Figure 2).…”

Section: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Government policy and healthcare management: proposal of a shared decision-making model

Petrillo

Felice

Vanzanella

et al. 2015

IJMDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2015) Government policy and healthcare management: proposal of a shared decisionmaking model. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 14 (3). pp. 183-204. ISSN 1741-5187 Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31734/1/Petrillo%202015%20IJMDM%20Government %20Policy%20and%20Health%20Care%20management-%20proposal%20of%20a %20shared%20decision-making%20model%20-%20final%20post-review%20author %20version%20with%20h.pdf Copyright and reuse:The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Vol. 14, No. 3. pp.183 -204. doi: 10.1504/IJMDM.2015 Fabio De Felice, Professor at the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, board member of several international organizations and responsible for scientific research and training in industrial plants. The scientific activity developed through studies and researches on problems concerning industrial plant engineering such as improvement of quality in productive processes, simulation of industrial plants, multicriteria techniques, RAMS Analysis and Human Reliability Analysis. General Secretary of the Analytic Hierarchy Process -AHP Academy -International Association for the promotion of multi-criteria decision making methods.Carmela Vanzanella, Researcher at Italian Council of National Researches in Rome (Italy), the largest public research institution in Italy. She conducts research activities on Medical Technology, Neuroradiolgy, Health technology assessment in order to provide technologies and solutions to emerging public and private needs, to advice Government and other public bodies, and to contribute to the qualification of human resources.Filippo Crispino, works as an entrepreneur and engineer in information technology for over 10 years. He has been CTO and CEO of several companies. In the last three years has been delegated to the "Research, Innovation and Technology Transfer" and chairman of the Young Entrepreneurs of Confindustria Campania, he has been researcher in the field of Operations Research at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Sannio, has participated in several research projects with universities and government agencies, has designed information systems and developed software for the Province of Rome, Avellino, University Nottingham and several companies. Stephen Morgan, is Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Nottingham....

show abstract

A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke Rehabilitation

Cited by 59 publications

References 30 publications

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Medicare Patients: Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Medicare Patients: Multicriteria Decision Analysis

A contrast between DEMATEL-ANP and ANP methods for six sigma project selection: a case study in healthcare industry

Government policy and healthcare management: proposal of a shared decision-making model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About