Literature DB >> 18760559

Shared decision-making--transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

James G Dolan1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to promote shared decision-making and enhance clinician-patient communication.
METHODS: Tutorial review.
RESULTS: The AHP promotes shared decision-making by creating a framework that is used to define the decision, summarize the information available, prioritize information needs, elicit preferences and values, and foster meaningful communication among decision stakeholders.
CONCLUSIONS: The AHP and related multi-criteria methods have the potential for improving the quality of clinical decisions and overcoming current barriers to implementing shared decision-making in busy clinical settings. Further research is needed to determine the best way to implement these tools and to determine their effectiveness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Many clinical decisions involve preference-based trade-offs between competing risks and benefits. The AHP is a well-developed method that provides a practical approach for improving patient-provider communication, clinical decision-making, and the quality of patient care in these situations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18760559      PMCID: PMC2650240          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  37 in total

1.  Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice.

Authors:  R Brian Haynes; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-06-08

2.  Application of analytic hierarchy process for measuring and comparing the global performance of intensive care units.

Authors:  Seetharaman Hariharan; Prasanta K Dey; Deryk R Chen; Harley S L Moseley; Areti Y Kumar
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.425

Review 3.  Rationality.

Authors:  Eldar Shafir; Robyn A LeBoeuf
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 24.137

4.  Aiding medical decision making: a communication perspective.

Authors:  Richard L Street
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  The moral nature of patient-centeredness: is it "just the right thing to do"?

Authors:  Patrick S Duggan; Gail Geller; Lisa A Cooper; Mary Catherine Beach
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-12-13

6.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population.

Authors:  Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  Patient-centredness in chronic illness: what is it and does it matter?

Authors:  Susan Michie; Jane Miles; John Weinman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-11

Review 9.  A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.

Authors:  Simon N Whitney; Amy L McGuire; Laurence B McCullough
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-01-06       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

Authors:  Karine Gravel; France Légaré; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  25 in total

1.  Factors influencing implementation of a computerized, individualized, culturally tailored lupus decision aid in lupus clinics: a qualitative semi-structured interview study.

Authors:  Haiyan Qu; Xuejun Hu; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  CorRECTreatment: a web-based decision support tool for rectal cancer treatment that uses the analytic hierarchy process and decision tree.

Authors:  A Suner; G Karakülah; O Dicle; S Sökmen; C C Çelikoğlu
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Maarten J Ijzerman; Janine A van Til; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Cut-Off Values of the Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Questionnaire for the Screening of Unplanned Hospital Readmission within One Year.

Authors:  Jiyeon Kang; Yeon Jin Jeong; Jiwon Hong
Journal:  J Korean Acad Nurs       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 0.984

5.  Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James G Dolan; Emily Boohaker; Jeroan Allison; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Assessing Medicare beneficiaries' strength-of-preference scores for health care options: how engaging does the elicitation technique need to be?

Authors:  Trafford Crump; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  The importance of measuring strength-of-preference scores for health care options in preference-sensitive care.

Authors:  R Trafford Crump; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Method Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Pediatric Drugs Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Application to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma.

Authors:  Yuncui Yu; Lulu Jia; Yao Meng; Lihua Hu; Yiwei Liu; Xiaolu Nie; Meng Zhang; Xuan Zhang; Sheng Han; Xiaoxia Peng; Xiaoling Wang
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.022

9.  Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Authors:  James G Dolan; Emily Boohaker; Jeroan Allison; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment.

Authors:  Milo A Puhan; Sonal Singh; Carlos O Weiss; Ravi Varadhan; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.