Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting
Open Access
- 24 December 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
- Vol. 15 (1), 1-27
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.Funding Information
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (DE)
This publication has 115 references indexed in Scilit:
- Differentiating innovation priorities among stakeholder in hospital careBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2013
- Performance Evaluation of Public Non-Profit Hospitals Using a BP Artificial Neural Network: The Case of Hubei Province in ChinaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2013
- User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a Computed Tomography (CT) scannerBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2013
- The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making?BMC Medical Ethics, 2012
- Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosisMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2011
- Proposed definition of ‘poor mobilizer’ in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo OsseoBone Marrow Transplantation, 2011
- Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision SupportThe Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2010
- Empirical Investigation of Radiologists’ Priorities for PACS Selection: An Analytical Hierarchy Process ApproachJournal of Digital Imaging, 2010
- A multi-criteria assessment of scenarios on thermal processing of infectious hospital wastes: A case study for Central MacedoniaWaste Management, 2010
- Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic reviewSocial Science & Medicine (1982), 2005