Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications:a literature review

Due to its wide applicability and ease of use, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been studied extensively for the last 20 years. Recently, it is observed that the focus has been confined to the applications of the integrated AHPs rather than the stand-alone AHP. The five tools that commonly combined with the AHP include mathematical programming, quality function deployment (QFD), meta-heuristics, SWOT analysis, and data envelopment analysis (DEA). This paper reviews the literature of the applications of the integrated AHPs. Related articles appearing in the international journals from 1997 to 2006 are gathered and analyzed so that the following three questions can be answered: (i) which type of the integrated AHPs was paid most attention to? (ii) which area the integrated AHPs were prevalently applied to? (iii) is there any inadequacy of the approaches? Based on the inadequacy, if any, some improvements and possible future work are recommended. This research not only provides evidence that the integrated AHPs are better than the stand-alone AHP, but also aids the researchers and decision makers in applying the integrated AHPs effectively.

Expanding the evidence within evidence-based healthcare:thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions

Evidence-based medicine is crucial to contemporary healthcare. It is dependent on systematic review methodology modelled on an arguably inadequate hierarchy of evidence. There has been a significant increase in medical and health research using qualitative and mixed method designs. The perspective taken in this article is that we need to broaden our evidence base if we are to fully take account of issues of context, acceptability and feasibility in the development and implementation of healthcare interventions. One way of doing this is to use a range of methods that better fit the different aspects of intervention development and implementation. Methods for the systematic review of evidence, other than randomised-controlled trials, are available and there is a readiness to incorporate these other types of evidence into good-practice guidance, but we need a clear methodology to translate these advances in research into the world of policy.