Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.

To investigate the feasibility and utility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.We conducted an AHP with nine diabetes experts using structured interviews to rank add-on therapies (to metformin) for type 2 diabetes. During the AHP, participants co...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nisa M Maruthur, Susan M Joy, James G Dolan, Hasan M Shihab, Sonal Singh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4441461?pdf=render
_version_ 1818164268400377856
author Nisa M Maruthur
Susan M Joy
James G Dolan
Hasan M Shihab
Sonal Singh
author_facet Nisa M Maruthur
Susan M Joy
James G Dolan
Hasan M Shihab
Sonal Singh
author_sort Nisa M Maruthur
collection DOAJ
description To investigate the feasibility and utility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.We conducted an AHP with nine diabetes experts using structured interviews to rank add-on therapies (to metformin) for type 2 diabetes. During the AHP, participants compared treatment alternatives relative to eight outcomes (hemoglobin A1c-lowering and seven potential harms) and the relative importance of the different outcomes. The AHP model and instrument were pre-tested and pilot-tested prior to use. Results were discussed and an evaluation of the AHP was conducted during a group session. We conducted the quantitative analysis using Expert Choice software with the ideal mode to determine the priority of treatment alternatives.Participants judged exenatide to be the best add-on therapy followed by sitagliptin, sulfonylureas, and then pioglitazone. Maximizing benefit was judged 21% more important than minimizing harm. Minimizing severe hypoglycemia was judged to be the most important harm to avoid. Exenatide was the best overall alternative if the importance of minimizing harms was prioritized completely over maximizing benefits. Participants reported that the AHP improved transparency, consistency, and an understanding of others' perspectives and agreed that the results reflected the views of the group.The AHP is feasible and useful to make decisions about diabetes medications. Future studies which incorporate stakeholder preferences should evaluate other decision contexts, objectives, and treatments.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T17:02:45Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1ec4bc0394f046558170974069a97989
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T17:02:45Z
publishDate 2015-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-1ec4bc0394f046558170974069a979892022-12-22T00:57:47ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01105e012662510.1371/journal.pone.0126625Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.Nisa M MaruthurSusan M JoyJames G DolanHasan M ShihabSonal SinghTo investigate the feasibility and utility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.We conducted an AHP with nine diabetes experts using structured interviews to rank add-on therapies (to metformin) for type 2 diabetes. During the AHP, participants compared treatment alternatives relative to eight outcomes (hemoglobin A1c-lowering and seven potential harms) and the relative importance of the different outcomes. The AHP model and instrument were pre-tested and pilot-tested prior to use. Results were discussed and an evaluation of the AHP was conducted during a group session. We conducted the quantitative analysis using Expert Choice software with the ideal mode to determine the priority of treatment alternatives.Participants judged exenatide to be the best add-on therapy followed by sitagliptin, sulfonylureas, and then pioglitazone. Maximizing benefit was judged 21% more important than minimizing harm. Minimizing severe hypoglycemia was judged to be the most important harm to avoid. Exenatide was the best overall alternative if the importance of minimizing harms was prioritized completely over maximizing benefits. Participants reported that the AHP improved transparency, consistency, and an understanding of others' perspectives and agreed that the results reflected the views of the group.The AHP is feasible and useful to make decisions about diabetes medications. Future studies which incorporate stakeholder preferences should evaluate other decision contexts, objectives, and treatments.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4441461?pdf=render
spellingShingle Nisa M Maruthur
Susan M Joy
James G Dolan
Hasan M Shihab
Sonal Singh
Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
PLoS ONE
title Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
title_full Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
title_fullStr Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
title_full_unstemmed Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
title_short Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
title_sort use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision making in type 2 diabetes
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4441461?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT nisammaruthur useoftheanalytichierarchyprocessformedicationdecisionmakingintype2diabetes
AT susanmjoy useoftheanalytichierarchyprocessformedicationdecisionmakingintype2diabetes
AT jamesgdolan useoftheanalytichierarchyprocessformedicationdecisionmakingintype2diabetes
AT hasanmshihab useoftheanalytichierarchyprocessformedicationdecisionmakingintype2diabetes
AT sonalsingh useoftheanalytichierarchyprocessformedicationdecisionmakingintype2diabetes