Radiologists’ Perspective on the Importance of Factors for MRI System Selection

Revealing user needs, which are usually dependent on qualitative methods, is a fundamental stage for medical technology selection and purchasing. The aim of this study is to determine weights of factors affecting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system selection from the radiologists’ perspective. In order to solve the problem, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-based model is used. Factors that affect the MRI system selection from radiologists’ point of view include five main criteria and 19 sub-criteria that are indicated by experts. An online questionnaire containing demographic questions enables each expert to compare the relative priority of criteria with all the other criteria. According to the analysis of 39 experts (i.e., radiologists), brand- and patient comfort-related factors are the two most important factors affecting the MRI system selection. A real-world application is conducted to illustrate the utilization of the model. AHP contributes to developing an analytic and comprehensive framework of decision making. The method should be considered by practitioners involved in decisions about new medical systems.

[1]  Ismail Onden,et al.  Geographical Information Systems and Multicriteria Decisions Integration Approach for Hospital Location Selection , 2016, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[2]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  J. Øvretveit.  The quality of health purchasing. , 2003, International journal of health care quality assurance incorporating Leadership in health services.

[4]  R. Ravangard,et al.  Priority of Determinants Influencing the Behavior of Purchasing the Capital Medical Equipments using AHP Model , 2012 .

[5]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Nuray Girginer,et al.  USAGE OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS IN MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASEMENT DECISIONS: A University Hospital Case , 2008 .

[7]  Han-Lin Li,et al.  Ranking Decision Alternatives by Integrated DEA, AHP and Gower Plot Techniques , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[8]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[9]  Jennifer L. Martin,et al.  The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers' perspectives , 2011, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[10]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[11]  Luiz Moutinho,et al.  The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects , 2011 .

[12]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications , 1986 .

[13]  Ilya Ivlev,et al.  Multiple-criteria comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging systems , 2016, Int. J. Medical Eng. Informatics.

[14]  William Ho,et al.  Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods , 2015, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[16]  Kathrin Damm,et al.  Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting , 2015, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[17]  R L Morin,et al.  Purchasing medical imaging equipment. , 1989, Radiology.

[18]  Luis G. Vargas.  An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications , 1990 .

[19]  S. Levy,et al.  Broadening the concept of marketing. , 1969, Journal of marketing.

[20]  Arzum Erken Celik.  USAGE OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS IN MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASING DECISIONS: A UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CASE BİR ÜNİVERSİTE HASTANESİNDE TIBBİ CİHAZ SATIN ALMA KARAR SÜRECİ , 2008 .

[21]  Ilya Ivlev,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  G. Cappellaro,et al.  Diffusion of medical technology: the role of financing. , 2011, Health policy.

[23]  Robert M Zucker,et al.  Evaluation and Purchase of Confocal Microscopes: Numerous Factors to Consider , 2010, Current protocols in cytometry.

[24]  Ian Robinson,et al.  Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[25]  Reza Khorramshahgol,et al.  An Integrated Strategic Approach to supplier Evaluation and Selection , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[26]  Elizabeth Murphy,et al.  Capturing user requirements in medical device development: the role of ergonomics , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[27]  Joyce J. P. A. Bierbooms,et al.  A scenario analysis of the future residential requirements for people with mental health problems in Eindhoven , 2011, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[28]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  Energy Decisions and the Environment: A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods , 2000 .

[29]  James G. Dolan,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[30]  Matthew J. Liberatore,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Jennifer L. Martin,et al.  User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[32]  Stefan Schulz,et al.  Detection of sentence boundaries and abbreviations in clinical narratives , 2015, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.