Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dolan, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dolan, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Are Patients Capable of Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Willing to Use It to Help Make Clinical Decisions?

James G. Dolan, MD

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a user-friendly technique that enables a decision maker to elicit subjective values and combine them with more objective data in an explicit, unbiased manner. To determine whether patients are capable of using and willing to use the AHP to help make clinical decisions, the author asked 20 volunteers to perform an AHP analysis of the choice among five screening regimens for colon cancer. The patients were categorized as capable if they completed the analysis in ≤ 45 minutes and as willing if they indicated that they would prefer to go through this type of analysis before making a clinical decision. Eighteen (90%) were capable and willing. The difference between this result and 25%, the predefined null hypothesis, is significant: p = 1.6 x 10-9. These results indicate that AHP-based decision-making aids are likely to be acceptable to and within the capabilities of many patients. If so, they could serve as practical tools for improving the clinical decision- making process. Key words: decision making; analytic hierarchy process; physician-patient relationship; informed consent. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:76-80)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 15, No. 1, 76-80 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500111
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 InterfacesHome page
M. Liberatore, R. Nydick, C. Daskalakis, E. Kunkel, J. Cocroft, and R. Myers
Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam
Interfaces, May 1, 2009; 39(3): 209 - 217.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. E. Barnato, H. A. Llewellyn-Thomas, E. M. Peters, L. Siminoff, E. D. Collins, and M. J. Barry
Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients' Decision Aids
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 626 - 634.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
A. M. O'Connor, V. Fiset, C. DeGrasse, I. D. Graham, W. Evans, D. Stacey, A. Laupacis, and P. Tugwell
Decision Aids for Patients Considering Options Affecting Cancer Outcomes: Evidence of Efficacy and Policy Implications
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, January 1, 1999; 1999(25): 67 - 80.
[Abstract] [Full Text]