Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences

  • Marion Danner (a1), J. Marjan Hummel (a2), Fabian Volz (a1), Jeannette G. van Manen (a2), Beate Wiegard (a1), Charalabos-Markos Dintsios (a1), Hilda Bastian (a3), Andreas Gerber (a1) and Maarten J. IJzerman (a2)...

Abstract

Background: Patient involvement is widely acknowledged to be a valuable component in health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare decision making. However, quantitative approaches to ascertain patients' preferences for treatment endpoints are not yet established. The objective of this study is to introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a preference elicitation method in HTA. Based on a systematic literature review on the use of AHP in health care in 2009, the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) initiated an AHP study related to its HTA work in 2010.

Methods: The AHP study included two AHP workshops, one with twelve patients and one with seven healthcare professionals. In these workshops, both patients and professionals rated their preferences with respect to the importance of different endpoints of antidepressant treatment by a pairwise comparison of individual endpoints. These comparisons were performed and evaluated by the AHP method and relative weights were generated for each endpoint.

Results: The AHP study indicates that AHP is a well-structured technique whose cognitive demands were well handled by patients and professionals. The two groups rated some of the included endpoints of antidepressant treatment differently. For both groups, however, the same six of the eleven endpoints analyzed accounted for more than 80 percent of the total weight.

Conclusions: AHP can be used in HTA to give a quantitative dimension to patients' preferences for treatment endpoints. Preference elicitation could provide important information at various stages of HTA and challenge opinions on the importance of endpoints.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Bana e Costa, CA, Vansnick, JC. A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;187:14221428.
2. Barzilai, J, Golany, B. AHP rank several, normalization and aggregation rules. Inf Syst Oper Res. 1994;32:5764.
3. Benaim, C, Perennou, DA, Pelissier, JY, Daures, JP. Using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for weighting items of a measurement scale: A pilot study. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58:5963.
4. Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:3035.
5. Dolan, JG. Shared decision-making - transferring research into practice: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:418425.
6. Dolan, JG, Bordley, DR. Individualized decision-making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Reliability, validity and clinical usefulness. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:322322.
7. Dolan, JG, Isselhardt, BJ Jr, Cappuccio, JD. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in medical decision making: A tutorial. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:4050.
8. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334340.
9. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
10. Hummel, JM, IJzermann, MJ. The use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in health care decision making. Enschede: University of Twente; 2009.
11. Ijzerman, M, van Til, J, Snoek, G. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision trechniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient. 2008;1:265273.
12. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Bupropion, Mirtazapin und Reboxetin bei der Behandlung der Depression: Abschlussbericht; Auftrag A05-20C; IQWiG-Bericht 68. Köln: IQWiG; 2009. http://www.iqwig.de/download/A05-20C_Abschlussbericht_Bupropion_Mirtazapin_und_Reboxetin_bei_Depressionen.pdf (accessed May 26, 2011).
13. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Selektive Serotonin- und Noradrenalin-Wiederaufnahmehemmer (SNRI) bei Patienten mit Depressionen: Abschlussbericht; Auftrag A05-20A; Version 1.1; IQWiG-Bericht 55. Köln: IQWiG; 2010. http://www.iqwig.de/download/A05-20A_Abschlussbericht_SNRI_bei_Patienten_mit_Depressionen_V1-1.pdf (accessed May 26, 2011).
14. Kallas, Z, Lambarraa, F, Gil, JM. A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus choice experiments. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22:181192.
15. Liang, L, Wang, G, Hua, Z, Zhang, B. Mapping verbal responses to numerical scales in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2008;42:4655.
16. Liberatore, MJ, Nydick, RL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189:194207.
17. Mulye, R. An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Mak. 1998;11:263280.
18. Ryan, M, Scott, DA, Reeves, C, et al. Eliciting public references for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1186.
19. Saaty, TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol. 1977;15:234281.
20. Saaty, TL. Group decision making and the AHP. In: Golden, BL, Wasil, WA, Harker, PT, eds. The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. Berlin: Springer; 1989:5967.
21. Saaty, TL. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:8398.
22. Saaty, TL, Vargas, LG. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Wash criteria should not be ignored. Int J Manage Decis Mak. 2006;7:180188.
23. Scheibler, F, Scheike, I, Dintsios, CM. Patientenpartizipation bei Festlegung und Gewichtung von Behandlungszielen: Status quo und Entwicklungspotenziale. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102:373377.
24. Scholl, A, Manthey, L, Helm, R. Solving multiattribute design problems with Analytic Hierarchy Process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res. 2005;164:760777.
25. Vogt, F, Schwappach, DLB, Bridges, JFP. Accounting for tastes: A German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:419423.

Keywords

Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences

  • Marion Danner (a1), J. Marjan Hummel (a2), Fabian Volz (a1), Jeannette G. van Manen (a2), Beate Wiegard (a1), Charalabos-Markos Dintsios (a1), Hilda Bastian (a3), Andreas Gerber (a1) and Maarten J. IJzerman (a2)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed