Abstract
This chapter gives an overview on how the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology can be used to elicit patients’ preferences and presents case studies on how this methodology may inform HTA and HTA-based decisions. Patients’ preferences are, together with external scientific knowledge and physician’s experience, the tenets of evidence-based medicine (Sackett et al., BMJ 312:71, 1996). To ensure that data on patients’ preferences is considered as robust evidence for decision-making, it should be generated in a methodologically sound, structured, and transparent way. AHP is a multiple-criteria decision-analytic (MCDA) method that can be used to elicit patients’ preferences for specific treatment characteristics or outcomes assessed in HTA. The steps in conducting an AHP are depicted. AHP follows transparent mathematical rules for data analysis but has its own methodological challenges and opportunities as depicted in this chapter. Examples of how AHP may be used in HTA and decision-making are provided and discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, Xiao H. Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect. 2015a;18:1812–26. doi:10.1111/hex.12178.
Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect. 2015b;18(6):1894–905. doi:10.1111/hex.12287.
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(5):435–46. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z.
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;58:59–63. doi:10.1016/j.respe.2009.09.004.
Envisioning Health Care 2020. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 2011.
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Patient Preference Information—Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling. Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/%20MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM446680.pdf (2016). Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
Danner M, Gerber-Grote A, Volz F, Wiegard B, Hummel JM, Ijzerman MJ et al. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)—Pilotprojekt zur Erhebung von Patientenpräferenzen in der Indikation Depression. 2013. https://www.iqwig.de/download/Arbeitspapier_Analytic-Hierarchy-Process_Pilotprojekt.pdf. Accessed: 11 Nov 2016.
Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, van Manen JG, Wiegard B, Dintsios CM, et al. Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:369–75. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000523.
Danner M, Vennedey V, Hiligsmann M, Fauser S, Gross C, Stock S. How well can analytic hierarchy process be used to elicit individual preferences? Insights from a survey in patients suffering from age-related macular degeneration. Patient. 2016;9(5):481–92. doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0179-7.
Dolan JG. Medical decision making using the analytic hierarchy process: choice of initial antimicrobial therapy for acute pyelonephritis. Med Decis Mak. 1989;9:51–6.
Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3:229–48. doi:10.2165/11539470-000000000-00000.
Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Can streamlined multicriteria decision analysis be used to implement shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening? Med Decis Mak. 2013a;34:746–55. doi:10.1177/0272989X13513338.
Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013b;33:59–70. doi:10.1177/0272989X12453502.
Dolan JG, Isselhardt Jr BJ, Cappuccio JD. The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: a tutorial. Med Decis Mak. 1989;9:40–50.
Dong Y, Xu Y, Li H, Dai M. A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;186:229–42. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.044.
Forman E, Peniwati K. Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;108 doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0.
Mündliche Anhörung gemäß 5. Kapitel § 19 Abs. 2 Verfahrensordnung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses—hier: Wirkstoff Afatinib [database on the Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/91-1031-87/2014-03-25_Wortprotokoll_end_Afatinib.pdf. Accessed: 6 Oct 2016.
Gerber-Grote A, Dintsios CM, Scheibler F, Schwalm A, Wiegard B, Mühlbacher A et al. Wahlbasierte Conjoint-Analyse—Pilotprojekt zur Identifikation, Gewichtung und Priorisierung multipler Attribute in der Indikation Hepatitis C. 2014.
Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2984–93. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2.
Hummel JM, Bridges JF, IJzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient. 2014;7:129–40.
Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ and Health Policy. 2013;11:499–507. doi:10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z.
Ishizaka A, Labib A. Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight. 2009;22:201–20.
Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.
Kinoshita E. Why we need AHP/ANP instead of utility theory in today’s complex world—AHP from the perspective of bounded rationality. 2005. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C1A22937FCE9669436D827A37E0A1689?doi=10.1.1.333.5543&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: 6 Oct 2016.
Kuruoglu E, Guldal D, Mevsim V, Gunvar T. Which family physician should I choose? The analytic hierarchy process approach for ranking of criteria in the selection of a family physician. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:63. doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0183-1.
Maleki H, Zahir S. A comprehensive literature review of the rank reversal phenomenon in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal. 2013;20:141–55. doi:10.1002/mcda.1479.
Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32:345–65. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0.
Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19:125–37. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016.
Maruthur NM, Joy SM, Dolan JG, Shihab HM, Singh S. Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0126625. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126625.
Muhlbacher AC, Bethge S. Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. The Europ J Health Econ. 2015;16(6):657–70. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0622-4.
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163–80. doi:10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3.
Reddy BP, Adams R, Walsh C, Barry M, Kind P. Using the analytic hierarchy process to derive health state utilities from ordinal preference data. Value Health. 2015;18:841–5. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.010.
Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol. 1977;15 doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
Saaty TL. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74 doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4.
Saaty TL. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh PA: RWS Publications; 2000.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray J, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71.
Schmidt K, Aumann I, Hollander I, Damm K, von der Schulenburg JM. Applying the analytic hierarchy process in healthcare research: a systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15(1):112. doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7.
Simon HA. Rationality as process and as product of thought. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68:1–16.
Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19:1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003.
Wang Y-M, Elhag TMS. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decis Support Syst. 2006;42:1474–80. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.12.002.
Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.018.
Xu Y, Levy BT, Daly JM, Bergus GR, Dunkelberg JC. Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:175. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0841-0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Danner, M., Gerber-Grote, A. (2017). Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: Facey, K., Ploug Hansen, H., Single, A. (eds) Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Adis, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4068-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4068-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Adis, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4067-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4068-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)