IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i6p944-d368841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy Multicriteria Modelling of Decision Making in the Renewal of Healthcare Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Domínguez

    (Department of Business Management, Technical School of Industrial Engineering, University of Castilla-la Mancha, 13005 Ciudad Real, Spain)

  • María Carmen Carnero

    (Department of Business Management, Technical School of Industrial Engineering, University of Castilla-la Mancha, 13005 Ciudad Real, Spain
    CEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649004 Lisbon, Portugal)

Abstract

In the current literature, there are a clear lack of systems to assist in making decisions about the renewal of technology for healthcare equipment, which means that the limited capacity to invest in new equipment cannot usually be appropriately applied as determined by the care requirements of a community. This may have important repercussions for patients, such as the inability to offer treatment or diagnosis, having to delay treatment or diagnosis, increase the risk of patients and care staff of using obsolete equipment, and preventing early, accurate, and reliable diagnosis, all of which have effects on the quality of care to a community. This study therefore describes the first multicriteria model in a fuzzy environment to assist in decision making related to the renewal of healthcare equipment. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), which allows for ambiguities, uncertainties, and doubts inherent in real-world decision processes to be taken into account, was used to do this. The model produces a plan with actions to be taken depending on the obtained results. The model includes a novel methodology that consists of modifying the top–down technique to allow for the levels of priority for renewing healthcare equipment to be determined from judgements given by three experts. The model was validated by applying it to a set of medical devices, and we show the results for a surgical C-arm, an X-ray CT room, a neonatal ventilator, a defibrillator, and a video-colonoscope. A program was also created using the NI Labview software to process the model so that it could be applied with a user interface that acts quickly, simply, and intuitively.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Domínguez & María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Fuzzy Multicriteria Modelling of Decision Making in the Renewal of Healthcare Technologies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-42, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:6:p:944-:d:368841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/6/944/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/6/944/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S Taghipour & D Banjevic & A K S Jardine, 2011. "Prioritization of medical equipment for maintenance decisions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1666-1687, September.
    2. Ly, Pham Thi Minh & Lai, Wen-Hsiang & Hsu, Chiung-Wen & Shih, Fang-Yin, 2018. "Fuzzy AHP analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Chen, Hongyi & Kocaoglu, Dundar F., 2008. "A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 266-288, February.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Ivlev, Ilya & Vacek, Jakub & Kneppo, Peter, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 216-228.
    6. Irvine Lapsley, 2001. "The Accounting–Clinical Interface—Implementing Budgets for Hospital Doctors," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(1), pages 79-109, February.
    7. Dursun, Mehtap & Karsak, E. Ertugrul & Karadayi, Melis Almula, 2011. "Assessment of health-care waste treatment alternatives using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approaches," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-107.
    8. Concetta Manuela La Fata & Toni Lupo & Tommaso Piazza, 2019. "Service quality benchmarking via a novel approach based on fuzzy ELECTRE III and IPA: an empirical case involving the Italian public healthcare context," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 106-120, March.
    9. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    10. Gang Kou & Wenshuai Wu, 2014. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 223(1), pages 239-254, December.
    11. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    12. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    13. Lettieri, Emanuele, 2009. "Uncertainty inclusion in budgeting technology adoption at a hospital level: Evidence from a multiple case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 128-136, December.
    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. Nikola Kadoić & Diana Šimić & Jasna Mesarić & Nina Begičević Ređep, 2021. "Measuring Quality of Public Hospitals in Croatia Using a Multi-Criteria Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-28, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Carmen Carnero & Andrés Gómez, 2019. "Optimization of Decision Making in the Supply of Medicinal Gases Used in Health Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Jana Krejčí & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "FAHPSort: A Fuzzy Extension of the AHPSort Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1119-1145, July.
    3. Ilić, Damir & Milošević, Isidora & Ilić-Kosanović, Tatjana, 2022. "Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for smart city transformation: Case study Belgrade," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Łuczak, Aleksandra & Kozera, Agnieszka, 2021. "A model to assess the development priorities of local administrations through the hierarchy of strategic factors," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 474-492.
    5. Vassiliki Kazana & Angelos Kazaklis & Dimitrios Raptis & Christos Stamatiou, 2020. "A combined multi-criteria approach to assess forest management sustainability: an application to the forests of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region in Greece," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 321-343, November.
    6. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    8. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Bojan Srdjevic & Yvonilde Medeiros, 2008. "Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Water Management Plans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(7), pages 877-894, July.
    10. Deng, Yanfei & Xu, Jiuping & Liu, Ying & Mancl, Karen, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: Regional development strategy application and decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 294-303.
    11. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    12. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Hanwen Chen & Wang Dong & Hongling Han & Nan Zhou, 2017. "A comprehensive and quantitative internal control index: construction, validation, and impact," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 337-377, August.
    14. Pınar Kaya Samut, 2017. "Integrated FANP-f-MIGP model for supplier selection in the renewable energy sector," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 427-450, May.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    16. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    17. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Tarik Agouti & Abdessadek Tikniouine, 2017. "A new integrated methodology using modified Delphi-fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE for Geospatial Business Intelligence selection," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 897-925, November.
    18. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    19. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    20. Elleuch, Mohamed Ali & Anane, Makram & Euchi, Jalel & Frikha, Ahmed, 2019. "Hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision making to solve the irrigation water allocation problem in the Tunisian case," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    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:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:6:p:944-:d:368841. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.