Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Elicit Patient Preferences

Hummel, Marjan J.M.; Volz, Fabian; Manen, Jeannette G. van; Danner, Marion; Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos; IJzerman, Maarten Joost; Gerber, Andreas

doi:10.1007/bf03262495

Cited by 51 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Basically, the AHP was used to prioritise the importance of the factors in deciding the screening examination. AHP has also been used in combining multiple clinical outcomes of healthcare interventions (Hummel et al, 2012). In order of decreasing importance, the authors found the following outcome measures: response to drug treatment, cognitive function, social function, no anxiety, remission, and no relapse.…”

Section: Ahp In Healthcarementioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritisation of service quality dimensions for healthcare sector

Islam

Ahmed

Tarique

2016

IJMEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the unique nature among the service industries, the overriding objective of the healthcare sector is to provide error free, impeccable services to their patients and clientele. It is not an option rather a norm for the healthcare sector to uphold and maintain the level of service that is quintessential and benchmark in the service industries. However, service quality has different meanings to different people. In this paper, SERVQUAL has been considered as the main tool to measure service quality and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been applied to prioritise the five dimensions of SERVQUAL for healthcare sector. In addition to this, AHP has been applied to prioritise the various items representing each of the dimensions. The results show that Reliability and Assurance are the two most important service quality dimensions in the healthcare sector. The priorities of dimensions and their items are also determined with respect to a selected demographic factors on the part of the respondents.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Islam, R., Ahmed, S. and Tarique, K.M. (2016) 'Prioritisation of service quality dimensions for healthcare sector', Int.

show abstract

Section: Ahp In Healthcarementioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritisation of service quality dimensions for healthcare sector

Islam

Ahmed

Tarique

2016

IJMEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With high CRs, the judgements are considered as random. The CR has a threshold of 0·2 that should not be exceeded ( Hummel et al . 2012 ).…”

Section: The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating newly acquired authority of nurse practitioners and physician assistants for reserved medical procedures in the Netherlands: a study protocol

Bruijn-Geraets

Eijk-Hustings

Vrijhoef

2014

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe study protocol is designed to evaluate the effects of granting independent authorization for medical procedures to nurse practitioners and physician assistants on processes and outcomes of health care.BackgroundRecent (temporarily) enacted legislation in Dutch health care authorizes nurse practitioners and physician assistants to indicate and perform specified medical procedures, i.e. catheterization, cardioversion, defibrillation, endoscopy, injection, puncture, prescribing and simple surgical procedures, independently. Formerly, these procedures were exclusively reserved to physicians, dentists and midwives.DesignA triangulation mixed method design is used to collect quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) data.MethodsOutcomes are selected from evidence-based frameworks and models for assessing the impact of advanced nursing on quality of health care. Data are collected in various manners. Surveys are structured around the domains: (i) quality of care; (ii) costs; (iii) healthcare resource use; and (iv) patient centredness. Focus group and expert interviews aim to ascertain facilitators and barriers to the implementation process. Data are collected before the amendment of the law, 1 and 2·5 years thereafter.Groups of patients, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, supervising physicians and policy makers all participate in this national study. The study is supported by a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in March 2011. Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained in July 2011.ConclusionThis study will provide information about the effects of granting independent authorization for medical procedures to nurse practitioners and physician assistants on processes and outcomes of health care. Study findings aim to support policy makers and other stakeholders in making related decisions. The study design enables a cross-national comparative analysis.

show abstract

“…Patients also want to decide scope of service of statutory health insurances’ and which services are covered. Several studies found differences between patients’ and physicians’ perceptions of preferences (e.g., [2–5]). It is relevant to assess the preferences of the (potential) patients instead of proxy reports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIdentifying 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsLimitations were the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the patients with different rare diseases.ConclusionIn 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0130-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Elicit Patient Preferences

Cited by 51 publications

References 25 publications

Prioritisation of service quality dimensions for healthcare sector

Prioritisation of service quality dimensions for healthcare sector

Evaluating newly acquired authority of nurse practitioners and physician assistants for reserved medical procedures in the Netherlands: a study protocol

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About