Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2008

01-04-2008 | Original Research Article

The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Weight Elicitation Techniques in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

A Pilot Study

Authors: Dr Janine A. van Til, James G. Dolan, Anne M. Stiggelbout, Karin C. G. M. Groothuis, Maarten J. IJzerman

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective: To test the applicability of multi-criteria decision analysis preference elicitation techniques in cognitively impaired individuals.
Method: A convenience sample of 16 cognitively impaired subjects and 12 healthy controls was asked to participate in a small pilot study. The subjects determined the relative importance of four decision criteria using five different weight elicitation techniques, namely simple multi-attribute rating technique, simple multi-attribute rating technique using swing weights, Kepner-Tregoe weighting, the analytical hierarchical process, and conjoint analysis.
Results: Conjoint analysis was judged to be the easiest method for weight elicitation in the control group (Z = 10.00; p = 0.04), while no significant differences in difficulty rating between methods was found in cognitively impaired subjects. Conjoint analysis elicitates weights and rankings significantly different from other methods. Subjectively, cognitively impaired subjects were positive about the use of the weight elicitation techniques. However, it seems the use of swing weights can result in the employment of shortcut strategies.
Conclusion: The results of this pilot study suggest that individuals with mild cognitive impairment are willing and able to use multi-criteria elicitation methods to determine criteria weights in a decision context, although no preference for a method was found. The same methodologic and practical issues can be identified in cognitively impaired individuals as in healthy controls and the choice of method is mostly determined by the decision context.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
A rank reversal is when a criterion is ranked differently, depending on the weight elicitation method. For instance when result is ranked first (most important) using AHP, but is ranked second (2nd important) using CA a rank reversal occurs.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, et al. Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 2004; 111: 775–9PubMedCrossRef Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, et al. Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 2004; 111: 775–9PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Spencer K, Aitken D. Factors affecting women’s preference for type of prenatal screening test for chromosomal anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 735–9PubMedCrossRef Spencer K, Aitken D. Factors affecting women’s preference for type of prenatal screening test for chromosomal anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 735–9PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 775–84PubMedCrossRef Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 775–84PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fallowfield L, McGurk R, Dixon M. Same gain, less pain: potential patient preferences for adjuvant treatment in preme-nopausal women with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 2403–10PubMedCrossRef Fallowfield L, McGurk R, Dixon M. Same gain, less pain: potential patient preferences for adjuvant treatment in preme-nopausal women with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 2403–10PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, et al. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 635–44PubMedCrossRef Hummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, et al. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 635–44PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001; 10Suppl. 1: i34–8PubMed Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001; 10Suppl. 1: i34–8PubMed
7.
go back to reference Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med 1999; 17: 285–94PubMedCrossRef Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med 1999; 17: 285–94PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 112PubMed Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 112PubMed
9.
go back to reference Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1–186PubMed Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1–186PubMed
10.
go back to reference Trevena L, Barratt A. Integrated decision making: definitions for a new discipline. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50: 265–8PubMedCrossRef Trevena L, Barratt A. Integrated decision making: definitions for a new discipline. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50: 265–8PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Edwards W, Barren FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 1994; 60: 306–25CrossRef Edwards W, Barren FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 1994; 60: 306–25CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535–46PubMedCrossRef Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535–46PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003 Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003
14.
go back to reference von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manage Sci 1993; 39: 937–43CrossRef von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manage Sci 1993; 39: 937–43CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Weber M, Borcherding K. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Operat Res 1993; 67: 1–12CrossRef Weber M, Borcherding K. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Operat Res 1993; 67: 1–12CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Williams ML, Dennis AR, Stam A, et al. The impact of DSS use and information load on errors and decision quality. Eur J Operat Res 2007; 176: 468–81CrossRef Williams ML, Dennis AR, Stam A, et al. The impact of DSS use and information load on errors and decision quality. Eur J Operat Res 2007; 176: 468–81CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Barry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 127–35PubMed Barry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 127–35PubMed
18.
go back to reference Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 54: 265–73PubMedCrossRef Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 54: 265–73PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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: 76–80PubMedCrossRef 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: 76–80PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kepner CH, Tregoe BB. The new rational manager. Skillman (NJ): Princeton Research Press, 1981 Kepner CH, Tregoe BB. The new rational manager. Skillman (NJ): Princeton Research Press, 1981
21.
go back to reference Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Operat Res 1990; 48: 9–26CrossRef Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Operat Res 1990; 48: 9–26CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530–3PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530–3PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Seymour DG, Ball AE, Russell EM, et al. Problems in using health survey questionnaires in older patients with physical disabilities: the reliability and validity of the SF-36 and the effect of cognitive impairment. J Eval Clin Prac 2001; 7: 411–8CrossRef Seymour DG, Ball AE, Russell EM, et al. Problems in using health survey questionnaires in older patients with physical disabilities: the reliability and validity of the SF-36 and the effect of cognitive impairment. J Eval Clin Prac 2001; 7: 411–8CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Chibnall JT, Tait RC. Pain assessment in cognitively impaired and unimpaired older adults: a comparison of four scales. Pain 2001; 92: 173–86PubMedCrossRef Chibnall JT, Tait RC. Pain assessment in cognitively impaired and unimpaired older adults: a comparison of four scales. Pain 2001; 92: 173–86PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Dyer RF, Forman EH. Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems 1992; 8: 99–124CrossRef Dyer RF, Forman EH. Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems 1992; 8: 99–124CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Shoemaker PJH, Waid CC. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Manage Sci 1982; 28: 182–96CrossRef Shoemaker PJH, Waid CC. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Manage Sci 1982; 28: 182–96CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Operat Res 2001; 129: 569–85CrossRef Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Operat Res 2001; 129: 569–85CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Srivastava J, Connolly T, Beach LR. Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 1995; 63: 112–6CrossRef Srivastava J, Connolly T, Beach LR. Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 1995; 63: 112–6CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Weight Elicitation Techniques in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
A Pilot Study
Authors
Dr Janine A. van Til
James G. Dolan
Anne M. Stiggelbout
Karin C. G. M. Groothuis
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publication date
01-04-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/01312067-200801020-00008

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2008 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.