Method of analysis of hierarchies in decision making in medicine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15276/opu.1.65.2022.12Keywords:
method of analysis of hierarchies (AHP), analytical hierarchy, decision-making process, decision-making in medicine, medical decisions, hierarchical analysis, process of analytical hierarchy Thomas SaatiAbstract
In everyday practice, health professionals face many challenges in making ethical and professional decisions. So far, little is known about ethical and professional reasoning and weighing the benefits and risks in the daily practice of complementary and alternative medicine. Along with the development of meta-analysis as a tool for summarizing research and scientific literature, there has been renewed interest in broader forms of quantitative analysis, which aims to combine evidence from different research plans or evidence from several parameters. They have been proposed under different headings: the trust profile method, cross-synthesis, hierarchical analysis models, and generalized evidence synthesis. The models used to evaluate health technologies are also called the synthesis of evidence in mathematical structure. The issues of the studied topic are quite relevant, because making difficult and “correct” decisions in the medical industry is quite acute on the agenda due to the constant emergence of new diseases or mutations in already known infections. Therefore, scientists are constantly improving their work, skills and knowledge in all areas. The process of analytical hierarchy, one of the most useful multicriteria methods of decision-making. It can allow doctors, patients themselves, and people who do not go to the medical institution, but choose the path of self-medication to explain their condition to the pharmacist in more detail to avoid even worse problems and serious conditions. He makes decisions by structuring the hierarchical elements of decisions and weighing criteria involved in the decision-making problem. To choose the best prevention policy to reduce the incidence of any disease. In this article we will consider the feasibility and effectiveness of using the method of hierarchical analysis in decision-making for the treatment and improvement of the patient, as well as summarize the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the effectiveness of this method.
Downloads
References
ELSEVIER journal Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP). (2021). Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17, 12, 2116–2126.
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (2018). Hindawi. Article ID 2315938. 10 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2315938.3. Ebrahimi, N., Maltepe, C., & Einarson, A. (2010). Optimal management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. International Journal of Women’s Health, 2, 1, 241–248.4. Shawahna, R., & Taha, A. (2017). Which potential harms and benefits of using ginger in the management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be addressed? A consensual study among pregnant women and gynecologists. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 17, 1, 204.
Marcus, D. M., & Snodgrass, W. R. (2005). Do No Harm: Avoidance of Herbal Medicines During Pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105, 5, 1, 1119–1122.
Tiran, D. (2012). Ginger to reduce nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: evidence of effectiveness is not the same as proof of safety. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 18, 1, 22–25.
Kennedy, D.A., Lupattelli, A., & Koren, G., (2016). Nordeng, H. Safety classification of herbal medicines used in pregnancy in a multinational study. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 16, 1.
Prinjha, S., Chapple, A., Herxheimer, A., & McPherson, A. (2005). Many people with epilepsy want to know more: a qualitative study. Journal of Family Practice, 22, 4, 435–441.
Lewis, R., & Dixon, J. (2004). Rethinking management of chronic diseases. BMJ, 328, 7433, 220–222.
Mckinstry, B. (2000). Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. BMJ, 321, 7265, 867–871.
Kunneman, M., Pieterse, A.H., Stiggelbout, A.M. Marijnen, C.A. (2015). Which benefits and harms of preoperative radiotherapy should be addressed? A Delphi consensus study among rectal cancer patients and radiation oncologists. Radiotherapy & Oncology, 114, 2, 212–217.
Dunn, J., Steginga, S. K., Rose, P., Scott, J., & Allison, R. (2004). Evaluating patient education materials about radiation therapy. Patient Education and Counseling, 52, 3, 325–332.
Güleser, G.N., Taşci, S., & Kaplan, B. (2012). The Experience of Symptoms and Information Needs of Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy. Journal of Cancer Education, 27, 1, 46–53.
Hack, T. F., Degner, L. F., & Parker P. A. (2005). The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 10, 831–845.
Cooper, R. J., Bissell, P., & Wingfield, J. (2008). Ethical decision-making, passivity and pharmacy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 6, 441–445.
Marie, M., & Edwards, S. (2005). The use of the reflective equilibrium method of moral reasoning in teaching animal and veterinary ethics / M. Marie, S. Edwards, G. Gandini et al., Eds. Animal Bioethics: Principles and Teaching Methods Marie, Michel. Wageningen Academic Publishing, The Netherlands, 329–314. DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-545-1.
I. Bolt, M. Verweij, and J. v. Delden. (2010). Ethiek in praktijk. 7e druk, Assen: Van Gorcum. ISBN 9789023238355, 7, 190 blz. Levertijd 1-2 werkdagen. pp. 33.
Bolt, I., van den Hoven, M., Blom, L., & Bouvy, M. (2015). To dispense or not to dispense? Ethical case decision-making in pharmacy practice. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 37, 6, 978–981.
Maruthur, N.M., Joy, S.M., Dolan, J. G., Shihab, H.M., Singh, S., & Linkov, I. (2015). Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Medication Decision-Making in Type 2 Diabetes. PLoS ONE, 10, 5, p. e0126625.
Guo, J.J., Pandey, S., Doyle, J., Bian, B., Lis, Y., & Raisch, D.W. (2010). A Review of Quantitative Risk–Benefit Methodologies for Assessing Drug Safety and Efficacy—Report of the ISPOR Risk–Benefit Management Working Group. Value in Health, 13, 5, 657–666.
