Analytic Hierarchy Process for Health Technology Assessment: A Case Study for Selecting a Maintenance Service Contract

Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 305)


Objective: In this study, the Analytic Hierarchic Process (AHP) was used to improve Health Technology Assessment (HTA) by: tracking the decision processes allowing stakeholders to understand the work done by decision-makers (DMs); weighting properly the most appropriate DM for each dimension of the problem; extending decision processes to DMs not skilled in complex mathematical methods. Moreover, our goal was to quantify qualitative knowledge, which affects HTA, using a scientific method. As a case study, we focused on the choice of a maintenance contract for a Computerized Tomography scanner.

Methods: The AHP was applied to support HTA for the need analysis and for the assessment of how each alternative fits each need. sixteen managers from eight hospitals were involved to assess the demand’s needs. Managers of four leading manufacturers providing maintenance services were involved to analyze different offers.

Results: AHP allowed quantify the relative importance of each need in each Hospital, showing that the demand changes according to several factors as: technologic asset, mission, position, and environment. Moreover, the proposed method enabled to measure how each contract adhered the demand, without further features not strictly required, for which hospitals are not willing to pay. These results were achieved using a fully traceable method, allowing stakeholders to fully understand the decision process.

Conclusion: AHP allowed to model demand and offer in a coherent framework of decision making, including both qualitative and quantitative knowledge. This enabled to reach the objectives of this study, quantifying needs’ relative importance and consequently the adherence of each contract.


analytic hierarchy process health technology assessment maintenance service contract user need elicitation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sloane, E.B.: Using a decision support tool for healthcare technology assessment. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. 23(3), 42–55 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracale, U., Rovani, M., Picardo, A., Merola, G., Pignata, G., Sodo, M., Di Salvo, E., Ratto, E.L., Noceti, A., Melillo, P., Pecchia, L.: Beneficial effects of fibrin glue (Quixil) versus Lichtenstein conventional technique in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. Hernia (2012), doi:10.1007/s10029-012-1020-4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bracale, U., Rovani, M., Bracale, M., Pignata, G., Corcione, F., Pecchia, L.: Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 21 (3):150-160 (2012), doi:10.3109/13645706, 588712Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bracale, U., Melillo, P., Pignata, G., Di Salvo, E., Rovani, M., Merola, G., Pecchia, L.: Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A systematic review of the literature with a network meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. (2012), doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2382-5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banta, H.D., Luce, B.R.: Health care technology and its assessment: an international perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leys, M.: Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy 65(3), 217–226 (2003), doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00209-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cios, K.J., Moore, G.W.: Uniqueness of medical data mining. Artif. Intell. Med. 26(1-2), 1–24 (2002), doi:S0933365702000490 [pii]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melillo, P., Fusco, R., Sansone, M., Bracale, M., Pecchia, L.: Discrimination power of long-term heart rate variability measures for chronic heart failure detection. Med. Bio. Eng. Comput. 49(1), 67–74 (2011), doi:10.1007/s11517-010-0728-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pecchia, L., Bath, P.A., Pendleton, N., Bracale, M.: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Examining Healthcare Professionals’ Assessments of Risk Factors. The Relative Importance of Risk Factors for Falls in Community-dwelling Older People. Methods Inf. Med. 50(1) (2010), doi:10-01-0028 [pii] 10.3414/ME10-01-0028Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pecchia, L., Martin, J., Ragozzino, A., Vanzanella, C., Scognamiglio, A., Mirarchi, L., Morgan, S.: User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 13(1), 2 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, M., Firoozbakhsh, K., Moniem, M., Jamshidi, M.: Determining flexor-tendon repair techniques via soft computing - A multi-objective fuzzy-logic method aids in making the best medical decision. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. 20(6), 176–183 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L.: The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 189(1), 194–207 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.001MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hummel, M.J.M., van Rossum, W., Verkerke, G.J., Rakhorst, G.: Assessing medical technologies in development - A new paradigm of medical technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. 16(4), 1214–1219 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sloane, E.B., Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L., Luo, W.H., Chung, Q.B.: Using the analytic hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an iterative, multidisciplinary, microeconomic health technology assessment. Computers & Operations Research 30(10), 1447–1465 (2003), doi:Pii S0305-0548(02)00187-9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chatburn, R.L., Primiano Jr., F.P.: Decision analysis for large capital purchases: how to buy a ventilator. Respir. Care 46(10), 1038–1053 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turri, J.J.: Program eases decision making. Health Prog 69(8), 40–44 (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process: the organization and prioritization of complexity, 1st edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finan, J.S., Hurley, W.J.: Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112(2), 367–372 (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ji, P., Jiang, R.: Scale transitivity in the AHP. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 54(8), 896–905 (2003), doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601557MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salo, A.A., Hamalainen, R.P.: The measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 11 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scholl, A., Manthey, L., Helm, R., Steiner, M.: Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. European Journal of Operational Research 164(3), 760–777 (2005), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.026MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saaty, T.L.: An essay on how judgment and measurement are different in science and in decision making. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 1(1), 2 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. International series in operations research & management science, vol 34. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pecchia, L., Bath, P.A., Pendleton, N., Bracale, M.: Web-based system for assessing risk factors for falls in community-dwelling elderly people using the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, J.K., Choi, S.H.: A utility range-based interactive group support system for multiattribute decision making. Computers & Operations Research 28(5), 485–503 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramanathan, R., Ganesh, L.S.: Group-Preference Aggregation Methods Employed in Ahp - an Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process for Deriving Members Weightages. European Journal of Operational Research 79(2), 249–265 (1994)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaplan, B., Shaw, N.T.: Future directions in evaluation research: People, organizational, and social issues. Method. Inform. Med. 43(3), 215–231 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heathfield, H.A., Buchan, I.E.: Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate. Brit. Med. J. 313(7063), 1008–1008 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bryson, N.: Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers & Operations Research 23(1), 27–35 (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dyer, R.F., Forman, E.H.: Group Decision Support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decis Support Syst 8(2), 99–124 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Banta, D.: The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2), 121–132 (2003), doi:Pii S0168-8510(02)00059-3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical, Electronic and Telecommunication EngineeringUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations