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

Show simple item record

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/559
dc.identifier.uri http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/583
dc.contributor.author Schmidt, Katharina
dc.contributor.author Aumann, Ines
dc.contributor.author Hollander, Ines
dc.contributor.author Damm, Kathrin
dc.contributor.author Schulenburg, Johann-Matthias Graf von der
dc.date.accessioned 2016-10-28T09:54:26Z
dc.date.available 2016-10-28T09:54:26Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation 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
dc.description.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. eng
dc.description.sponsorship CHERH
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher London : BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.relation.ispartofseries BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 15 (2015), Nr. 1
dc.rights CC BY 4.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject Analytic Hierarchy Process eng
dc.subject Methodological standards eng
dc.subject Multi-criteria decision making eng
dc.subject Priorities eng
dc.subject Systematic literature review eng
dc.subject Asia eng
dc.subject human eng
dc.subject Medline eng
dc.subject motivation eng
dc.subject systematic review eng
dc.subject Web of Science eng
dc.subject.ddc 610 | Medizin, Gesundheit ger
dc.title Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting eng
dc.type article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.issn 1472-6947
dc.relation.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 1
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 15
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 234
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s):

Show simple item record

 

Search the repository


Browse

My Account

Usage Statistics