IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i6p746-755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan
  • Emily Boohaker
  • Jeroan Allison
  • Thomas F. Imperiale

Abstract

Background. Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order–based judgments can accurately assess patients’ colorectal cancer screening priorities. Methods. We converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order–based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland–Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order–based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results. Correlations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order–based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. Conclusions. Rank-order–based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2014. "Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 746-755, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:746-755
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13513338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13513338
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13513338?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    2. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    3. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    4. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    5. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    6. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, 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. Luca Anzilli & Silvio Giove, 2020. "Multi-criteria and medical diagnosis for application to health insurance systems: a general approach through non-additive measures," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 559-582, December.
    2. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2020. "An analysis of the sensitivity and stability of patients’ preferences can lead to more appropriate medical decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 863-901, October.

    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. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    2. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    4. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2013. "Patients’ Preferences and Priorities Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    5. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    6. Song-Kyoo Kim, 2014. "Explicit Design of Innovation Performance Metrics by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Expansion," International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-7, May.
    7. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    8. Ouesleti, Bilel & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Kallas, Zein & Chema Gil, Jose Maria, 2015. "Determinant Factors Affecting The Point of Purchase Selection: valuation and Perceptions," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212603, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    10. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.
    11. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    12. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    13. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    14. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    15. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    16. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    17. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    18. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    19. Yang, Chih-Hao & Lee, Kuen-Chang, 2020. "Developing a strategy map for forensic accounting with fraud risk management: An integrated balanced scorecard-based decision model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.

    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:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:746-755. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.