Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T13:33:19.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - How Are Group Decisions Practiced in Healthcare?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2023

Ramalingam Shanmugam
Ramalingam Shanmugam
Affiliation:
Texas State University, San Marcos
Get access

Summary

First, let us understand the need for making a group decision in the healthcare setting. A single person making healthcare decisions is likely to offer more liabilities than strengths. Group decision-making can reduce this risk. One advantage of group decision-making is that it brings in different perspectives. Because group members have different orientations and interests, the group decision-making process is chaotic with conflicts and contradictions. Strategies can be employed to rectify these difficulties.

The Delphi approach increases the chance for reaching a consensus by utilizing qualitative techniques as well as descriptive and inferential concepts. The Delphi procedure is appropriate when several criteria are to be met and hence gets the name multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Aires and Ferreira, 2018). The MCDA functions based on five components: goal, criteria, alternatives, decision makers, and outcomes (Kumar et al., 2017). The MCDA builds consensus using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

Type
Chapter
Information
Data-Guided Healthcare Decision Making , pp. 199 - 211
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected References

Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., & Smarandache, F. (2019). A group decision making framework based on neutrosophic TOPSIS approach for smart medical device selection. Journal of Medical Systems, 43(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmadi, A., Pishvaee, M. S., & Heydari, M. (2019). How group purchasing organisations influence healthcare-product supply chains: an analytical approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 70(2), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aires, R. F. D. F., & Ferreira, L. (2018). The rank reversal problem in multi-criteria decision making: A literature review. Pesquisa Operacional, 38, 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemi, F., & Gustafson, D. H. (2007). Decision Analysis for Healthcare Managers. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
Babac, A., Litzkendorf, S., Schmidt, K. et al. (2017). Shaping an effective health information website on rare diseases using a group decision-making tool: inclusion of the perspectives of patients, their family members, and physicians. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 6(2), e7352.Google Scholar
Biswas, S. (2021). Implications of industry 4.0 vis-à-vis lean six sigma: a multi-criteria group decision approach. In Proceedings of the JD Birla International Management Conference on Strategic Management in Industry (Vol. 4). Kolkata: Technology Driven Operations Management.Google Scholar
Brahm, C., & Kleiner, B. H. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages of group decision‐making approaches. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 2, 30–35.Google Scholar
Chai, J., Xian, S., & Lu, S. (2021). Z‐uncertain probabilistic linguistic variables and its application in emergency decision making for treatment of COVID‐19 patients. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 36(1), 362–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declercq, E., Menacker, F., & MacDorman, M. (2005). Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991–2001: Cross-sectional analysis. British Medical Journal, 330(7482), 71–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, D., Knoedler, M. A., Hess, E. P. et al. (2012). Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision‐making: a systematic review. Academic Emergency Medicine, 19(8), 959–967.Google Scholar
Gheondea-Eladi, A. (2017). What connects us in shared decision-making in health. Rocznik Lubuski, 43(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
Hillebregt, C. F., Scholten, E. W., Post, M. W., Visser-Meily, J. M., & Ketelaar, M. (2019). Family group decision-making interventions in adult healthcare and welfare: a systematic literature review of its key elements and effectiveness. BMJ Open, 9(4), e026768.Google Scholar
Hsieh, C. J., Fifić, M., & Yang, C. T. (2020). A new measure of group decision-making efficiency. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 1–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsu, W. C. J., Liou, J. J., & Lo, H. W. (2020). A group decision-making approach for exploring trends in the development of the healthcare industry in Taiwan. Decision Support Systems, 141, 113447.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Emergency decision making: a theoretical analysis of responses to disaster warnings. Journal of Human Stress, 3(2), 35–48.Google Scholar
Kanzaria, H. K., Brook, R. H., Probst, M. A. et al. (2015). Emergency physician perceptions of shared decision‐making. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(4), 399–405.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. I. M., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 558–590.Google Scholar
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R. et al. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596–609.Google Scholar
Liu, S., & Insua, D. R. (2020). Group decision making with affective features. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(5), 843–869.Google Scholar
Liu, W., & Li, L. (2019). Emergency decision-making combining cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making. Granular Computing, 4(1), 39–52.Google Scholar
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnick, E. R., Probst, M. A., Schoenfeld, E. et al. (2016). Development and testing of shared decision-making interventions for use in emergency care: a research agenda. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(12), 1346–1353.Google Scholar
Niburski, K., Guadagno, E., Mohtashami, S., & Poenaru, D. (2020). SDM in surgery: a scoping review of the literature. Health Expectations, 23(5), 1241–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences. Houston, TX: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669.Google Scholar
Sun, B., Ma, W., & Zhao, H. (2016). An approach to emergency decision making based on decision-theoretic rough set over two universes. Soft Computing, 20(9), 3617–3628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, R. S., & Winget, J. R. (2019). Group decision-making. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, edited by Braddick, O.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Triantaphyllou, E., & Yanase, J. (2021). The seven key challenges for life-critical shared decision-making systems. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 148, 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104377.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Zhang, W., & Wang, H. (2015). A conflict-eliminating approach for emergency group decision of unconventional incidents. Knowledge-Based Systems, 83, 92–104.Google Scholar
Yin, X., Xu, X., & Pan, B. (2021). Selection of strategy for large group emergency decision-making based on risk measurement. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 208, 107325.Google Scholar
Zamora, Y. B. (2020). Consensus building in a group decision-making process. Pesquisa Operacional, 40, e235350. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2020.040.00235350.Google Scholar
Zhou, L., Wu, X., Xu, Z., & Fujita, H. (2018). Emergency decision making for natural disasters: An overview. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 567–576.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×