LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Biomed Central
Journal: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R5-920, DOAJ:Health Sciences, Analytic hierarchy process, AHP, Medical decision-making, Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics, Medicine (General), Medicine, R858-859.7, R, DOAJ:Medicine (General), Medical device, User needs elicitation, Research Article

Abstract

Background

The rigorous elicitation of user needs is a crucial step for both medical device design and purchasing. However, user needs elicitation is often based on qualitative methods whose findings can be difficult to integrate into medical decision-making. This paper describes the application of AHP to elicit user needs for a new CT scanner for use in a public hospital.

Methods

AHP was used to design a hierarchy of 12 needs for a new CT scanner, grouped into 4 homogenous categories, and to prepare a paper questionnaire to investigate the relative priorities of these. The questionnaire was completed by 5 senior clinicians working in a variety of clinical specialisations and departments in the same Italian public hospital.

Results

Although safety and performance were considered the most important issues, user needs changed according to clinical scenario. For elective surgery, the five most important needs were: spatial resolution, processing software, radiation dose, patient monitoring, and contrast medium. For emergency, the top five most important needs were: patient monitoring, radiation dose, contrast medium control, speed run, spatial resolution.

Conclusions

AHP effectively supported user need elicitation, helping to develop an analytic and intelligible framework of decision-making. User needs varied according to working scenario (elective versus emergency medicine) more than clinical specialization. This method should be considered by practitioners involved in decisions about new medical technology, whether that be during device design or before deciding whether to allocate budgets for new medical devices according to clinical functions or according to hospital department.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Sawyer D: Do it by design. An introduction to human factors in medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/ guidancedocuments/ucm094957.htm.
    • 2. Martin JL, Murphy E, Crowe JA, Norris BJ: Capturing user requirements in medical device development: the role of ergonomics. Physiol Meas 2006, 27(8):R49-R62.
    • 3. Shah SGS, Robinson I: Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23(1):131-137.
    • 4. Money AG, Barnett J, Kuljis J, Craven MP, Martin JL, Young T: The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers' perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011, 11:15.
    • 5. Martin JL, Barnett J: Integrating the results of user research into medical device development: insights from a case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:74.
    • 6. Bracale U, Rovani M, Picardo A, Merola G, Pignata G, Sodo M, Di Salvo E, Ratto EL, Noceti A, Melillo P, et al: Beneficial effects of fibrin glue (Quixil) versus Lichtenstein conventional technique in inguinal hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. Hernia 2012, Epub ahead of print.
    • 7. 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 2011, 21(3):150-160.
    • 8. Bracale U, Rovani M, Melillo P, Merola G, Pecchia L: Which is the best laparoscopic approach for inguinal hernia repair: TEP or TAPP? A network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2012, Epub ahead of print.
    • 9. Leys M: Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003, 65(3):217-226.
    • 10. Martin JL, Norris BJ, Murphy E, Crowe JA: Medical device development: The challenge for ergonomics. Appl Ergon 2008, 39(3):271-283.
    • 11. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Qualitative research in health care - Analysing qualitative data (Reprinted from Qualitative Research in Health Care). Br Med J 2000, 320(7227):114-116.
    • 12. Upshur REG, VanDenKerkhof EG, Goel V: Meaning and measurement: an inclusive model of evidence in health care. J Eval Clin Pract 2001, 7(2):91-96.
    • 13. Kaplan B, Shaw NT: Future directions in evaluation research: People, organizational, and social issues. Methods Inf Med 2004, 43(3):215-231.
    • 14. Sackett DL, Haynes RB: Evidence base of clinical diagnosis - The architecture of diagnostic research. Br Med J 2002, 324(7336):539-541.
    • 15. Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358(9280):483-488.
    • 16. Chapple A, Rogers A: Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: a step in the right direction, a defence of the 'soft' option, or a form of sociological imperialism? Fam Pract 1998, 15(6):556-561.
    • 17. Hostgaard AM, Bertelsen P, Nohr C: Methods to identify, study and understand End-user participation in HIT development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011, 11:57.
    • 18. Cios KJ, Moore GW: Uniqueness of medical data mining. Artif Intell Med 2002, 26(1-2):1-24.
    • 19. 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 2011, 49(1):67-74.
    • 20. Melillo P, Izzo R, Luca N, Pecchia L: Heart rate variability and target organ damage in hypertensive patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2012, 12(1):105.
    • 21. Pecchia L, Mirarchi L, Doniacovo R, Marsico V, Bracale M: Health Technology Assessment for a Service Contract: a new method for decisional tools. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2009, 25(12):105-108.
    • 22. Benario HW: Caesar's Gallic war: a commentary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press; 2012.
    • 23. Raible F, Brand M: Divide et Impera-the midbrain-hindbrain boundary and its organizer. Trends Neurosci 2004, 27(12):727-734.
    • 24. Scorrano L: Divide et impera: Ca2+ signals, mitochondrial fission and sensitization to apoptosis. Cell Death Differ 2003, 10(12):1287-1289.
    • 25. Reinhardt U: Divide et impera: protecting the growth of health care incomes (COSTS). Health Econ 2012, 21(1):41-54.
    • 26. Pecchia LB, P A, Pendleton N, Jackson S, Clarke C, Briggs P, Mcinnes L, Angelova M, Bracale M: The use of analytic hierarchy process for the prioritization of factors affecting wellbeing in elderly, proceedings of the 11th. International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP). Sorrento, Naples, Italy; 2011:1-4.
    • 27. Saaty TL: An essay on how judgment and measurement are different in science and in decision making. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2009, 1(1):61-62.
    • 28. Pecchia L, Bath PA, Pendleton N, Bracale M: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for examining healthcare professionals' assessments of risk factorsThe relative importance of risk factors for falls in communitydwelling older people. Methods Inf Med 2011, 50(5):435-444.
    • 29. Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ: A Systematic Review of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Health Care Decision Making. Value Health 2009, 12(7):A227-A227.
    • 30. Uzoka FM, Obot O, Barker K, Osuji J: An experimental comparison of fuzzy logic and analytic hierarchy process for medical decision support systems. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2011, 103(1):10-27.
    • 31. Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, van Manen JG, Wiegard B, Dintsios C-M, Bastian H, Gerber A, Ijzerman MJ: 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(4):369-375.
    • 32. Bridges JF: Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. PharmacoEconomics 2005, 23(4):317-321.
    • 33. Dolan JG: Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions? Med Decis Making 1995, 15(1):76-80.
    • 34. 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(4):229-248.
    • 35. Bridges JF, Carswell CI: Andrew lloyd: a driving force in patient-centered outcomes research. Patient 2008, 1(4):259-263.
    • 36. Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB: Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer 2012, 77(1):224-231.
    • 37. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012, 21(2):145-172.
    • 38. Gallego G, Bridges JF, Flynn T, Blauvelt BM: Predicting the Future Impact of Emerging Technologies on Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Hcc): Measuring Stakeholders Preferences with Best-Worst Scaling. Value Health 2011, 14(3):A176-A176.
    • 39. Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R, Steiner M: Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res 2005, 164(3):760-777.
    • 40. Mulye R: An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Mak 1998, 11(4):263-280.
    • 41. Ijzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ: Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008, 1(4):265-272.
    • 42. Ijzerman MJ, van Til JA, Bridges JF: A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient 2012, 5(1):45-56.
    • 43. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL: The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res 2008, 189(1):194-207.
    • 44. Tarimcilar MM, Khaksari SZ: Capital-budgeting in Hospital Management using the analytic hierarchy process. Socioecon Plann Sci 1991, 25(1):27-34.
    • 45. van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, Ijzerman MJ: The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89(3):457-462.
    • 46. Hu H: Multi-slice helical CT: scan and reconstruction. Med Phys 1999, 26(1):5-18.
    • 47. Kroft J, Klostermann NR, Moody JRK, Taerk E, Wolfman W: A novel regimen of combination transdermal estrogen and intermittent vaginally administered progesterone for relief of menopausal symptoms. Gynecol Endocrinol 2010, 26(12):902-908.
    • 48. Pecchia L, Bracale U, Bracale M: Health Technology Assessment of Home Monitoring for the Continuity of Care of patient suffering from congestive heart failure. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2009, 25(12):184-187.
    • 49. Saaty TL, Vargas LG: Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.
    • 50. Saaty TL: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 1977, 15:8.
    • 51. Ji P, Jiang R: Scale transitivity in the AHP. J Oper Res Soc 2003, 54(8):896-905.
    • 52. Finan JS, Hurley WJ: Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale. Eur J Oper Res 1999, 112(2):367-372.
    • 53. Salo AA, Hamalainen RP: The measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 1997, 6:11.
    • 54. Pecchia L, Bath PA, 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 2010, 2(2):135-157.
    • 55. Pecchia L, Bath P, Pendleton N, Bracale M: AHP and risk management: a case study for assessing risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older patients. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on AHP (ISAHP2009): July 29-August 1. Edited by Tammy T. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh; 2009:1-15. ISSN 1556-8296.
    • 56. Pecchia L, Bracale U, Melillo P, Sansone M, Bracale M: AHP for Health Technology Assessment. A case study: prioritizing care approaches for patients suffering from chronic heart failure. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on AHP (ISAHP2009): July 29-August 1. Edited by Tammy T. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh; 2009:1-9. ISSN 1556-8296.
    • 57. Saaty T: How to Structure and Make Choices in Complex Problems. Hum Syst Manag 1982, 3(4):255-261.
    • 58. Uzoka FME: A fuzzy-enhanced multicriteria decision analysis model for evaluating university Academics' research output. Information Knowledge Systems Management 2008, 7.
    • 59. Carmone FJ, Kara A, Zanakis SH: A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 1997, 102(3):538-553.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article