IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v9y2016i5d10.1007_s40271-016-0179-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Danner

    (Cologne University Hospital)

  • Vera Vennedey

    (Cologne University Hospital)

  • Mickaël Hiligsmann

    (Maastricht University)

  • Sascha Fauser

    (Cologne University Hospital)

  • Christian Gross

    (Cologne University Hospital)

  • Stephanie Stock

    (Cologne University Hospital)

Abstract

Background In this study, we tested the feasibility of an interviewer-assisted analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a special patient population with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objectives One aim was to generate preference weights regarding AMD treatment characteristics. A secondary aim was to explore the consistency of preference judgments and reasons for inconsistency. Methods We generated quantitative importance weights for decision criteria using the matrix multiplication method. A qualitative study component in the form of asking patients to think aloud throughout their judgments was implemented to facilitate understanding of quantitative findings. Consistency ratios were calculated as a measure of logical judgment performance within AHP. If consistency ratios exceeded 0.2, we explored reasons for inconsistency. Results We interviewed 86 patients and generated preference weights for criteria. Patients rated the injection’s effect on visual function the highest (0.44), followed by the frequency of monitoring visits (0.18), approval status (0.13), injection frequency (0.13), and side effects (0.12). Inconsistency in judgments was prevalent at the subcriteria level. Whereas much of the observed inconsistency was due to an excessive use of high/extreme value judgments, these judgments seemed to result from patients reasonably trying to highlight their strong preferences. Conclusion Our study combines quantitative with qualitative data to explore patients’ preference weights and decision processes using the AHP. It suggests that the type of inconsistency observed in judgments of AMD patients mostly results from rational decision making, not from error or lack of understanding. Further research should address which type and extent of inconsistency might be acceptable in different AHP settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Mickaël Hiligsmann & Sascha Fauser & Christian Gross & Stephanie Stock, 2016. "How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 481-492, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0179-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0179-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0179-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0179-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forman, Ernest H., 1990. "Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 153-155, September.
    2. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    3. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2020. "The Triads Geometric Consistency Index in AHP-Pairwise Comparison Matrices," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental D," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, June.

    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. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    2. V.M. Rao Tummala & Hong Ling, 1998. "A Note on the Computation of the Mean Random Consistency Index of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 221-230, June.
    3. Pablo Aragonés‐Beltrán & Mª. Carmen González‐Cruz & Astrid León‐Camargo & Rosario Viñoles‐Cebolla, 2023. "Assessment of regional development needs according to criteria based on the Sustainable Development Goals in the Meta Region (Colombia)," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1101-1121, April.
    4. Chetan A. Jhaveri & Jitendra M. Nenavani, 2020. "Evaluation of eTail Services Quality: AHP Approach," Vision, , vol. 24(3), pages 310-319, September.
    5. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Sharma, Mahak & Sehrawat, Rajat, 2020. "A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method for cloud adoption: Evidence from the healthcare sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    7. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    8. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    9. Crary, Michael & Nozick, L. K. & Whitaker, L. R., 2002. "Sizing the US destroyer fleet," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 680-695, February.
    10. Giada Feletti & Mariachiara Piraina & Boris Petrenj & Paolo Trucco, 2022. "Collaborative capability building for critical infrastructure resilience: assessment and selection of good practices," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 207-233, June.
    11. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    12. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    13. Rabelo, Luis & Eskandari, Hamidreza & Shaalan, Tarek & Helal, Magdy, 2007. "Value chain analysis using hybrid simulation and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 536-547, February.
    14. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    15. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    16. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    17. Orduño, Miguel Angel & Kallas, Zein & Ornelas, Selene Ivette, 2021. "Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions Based on Farmers' Environmental Preferences and Perceptions. Sustainable Agriculture, Mexico," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314967, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ivona Ivić & Anita Cerić, 2024. "Mitigation Measures for Information Asymmetry between Participants in Construction Projects: The Impact of Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.
    19. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0179-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.