Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Download statistics - Document (COUNTER):

Schmidt, K.; Aumann, I.; Hollander, Ines; Damm, Kathrin; Von der Schulenburg, J.-Matthias Graf: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting . In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 15 (2015), Nr. 1 , 234. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7

Repository version

To cite the version in the repository, please use this identifier: https://doi.org/10.15488/559

Selected time period:

year: 
month: 

Sum total of downloads: 368




Thumbnail
Abstract: 
Background: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in the late 1970s, is one of the methods for multi-criteria decision making. The AHP disaggregates a complex decision problem into different hierarchical levels. The weight for each criterion and alternative are judged in pairwise comparisons and priorities are calculated by the Eigenvector method. The slowly increasing application of the AHP was the motivation for this study to explore the current state of its methodology in the healthcare context. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted by searching the Pubmed and Web of Science databases for articles with the following keywords in their titles or abstracts: "Analytic Hierarchy Process," "Analytical Hierarchy Process," "multi-criteria decision analysis," "multiple criteria decision," "stated preference," and "pairwise comparison." In addition, we developed reporting criteria to indicate whether the authors reported important aspects and evaluated the resulting studies' reporting. Results: The systematic review resulted in 121 articles. The number of studies applying AHP has increased since 2005. Most studies were from Asia (almost 30 %), followed by the US (25.6 %). On average, the studies used 19.64 criteria throughout their hierarchical levels. Furthermore, we restricted a detailed analysis to those articles published within the last 5 years (n = 69). The mean of participants in these studies were 109, whereas we identified major differences in how the surveys were conducted. The evaluation of reporting showed that the mean of reported elements was about 6.75 out of 10. Thus, 12 out of 69 studies reported less than half of the criteria. Conclusion: The AHP has been applied inconsistently in healthcare research. A minority of studies described all the relevant aspects. Thus, the statements in this review may be biased, as they are restricted to the information available in the papers. Hence, further research is required to discover who should be interviewed and how, how inconsistent answers should be dealt with, and how the outcome and stability of the results should be presented. In addition, we need new insights to determine which target group can best handle the challenges of the AHP.
License of this version: CC BY 4.0 Unported
Document Type: article
Publishing status: publishedVersion
Issue Date: 2015
Appears in Collections:Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät

distribution of downloads over the selected time period:

downloads by country:

pos. country downloads
total perc.
1 image of flag of Germany Germany 241 65.49%
2 image of flag of United States United States 47 12.77%
3 image of flag of India India 9 2.45%
4 image of flag of No geo information available No geo information available 6 1.63%
5 image of flag of Serbia Serbia 6 1.63%
6 image of flag of France France 6 1.63%
7 image of flag of Switzerland Switzerland 6 1.63%
8 image of flag of Turkey Turkey 5 1.36%
9 image of flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom 4 1.09%
10 image of flag of China China 4 1.09%
    other countries 34 9.24%

Further download figures and rankings:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.

Search the repository


Browse