Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency

Ahmadi, H., Rad, M. S., Nazari, M., Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. (2014). Evaluating the factors affecting the implementation of hospital information system (HIS) using AHP method. Life Science Journal, 11(3), 202-207.Search in Google Scholar

Arnesen, T., & Trommald, M. (2004). Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. Journal of health services research & policy, 9(1), 43-50.10.1258/135581904322716111Search in Google Scholar

Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). The efficacy of SMARTER-Simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica, 93(1), 23-36.10.1016/0001-6918(96)00010-8Search in Google Scholar

Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. (2001). A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega, 29(6), 553-560.10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00044-5Search in Google Scholar

Bottomley, P. A., Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (2000). Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: direct rating versus point allocation. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 508-513.10.1509/jmkr.37.4.508.18794Search in Google Scholar

Chin, K. S., Fu, C., & Wang, Y. (2015). A method of determining attribute weights in evidential reasoning approach based on incompatibility among attributes. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 87, 150-162.10.1016/j.cie.2015.04.016Search in Google Scholar

Colombo, E., & Francalanci, C. (2004). Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: Empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model. Requirements Engineering, 9(3), 186-203.10.1007/s00766-003-0184-ySearch in Google Scholar

Curtis, I. A. (2004). Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes. Ecological Economics, 50(3), 163-194.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Danaher, P. J. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of service attributes measured in customer satisfaction surveys. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 235-260.10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90005-1Search in Google Scholar

Dehghan-Manshadi, B., Mahmudi, H., Abedian, A., & Mahmudi, R. (2007). A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method. Materials & Design, 28(1), 8-15.10.1016/j.matdes.2005.06.023Search in Google Scholar

Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6Search in Google Scholar

Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-HSearch in Google Scholar

e Costa, C. A. B., & Vansnick, J. C. (1997). A theoretical framework for measuring attractiveness by a categorical based evaluation technique (MACBETH). In Multicriteria Analysis (pp. 15-24). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.10.1007/978-3-642-60667-0_3Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 60(3), 306-325.10.1006/obhd.1994.1087Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 60(3), 306-325.10.1006/obhd.1994.1087Search in Google Scholar

Huang, J. (2008). Combining entropy weight and TOPSIS method for information system selection. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, 1281-128410.1109/ICCIS.2008.4670971Search in Google Scholar

Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making making: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9Search in Google Scholar

Jadhav, A. S., & Sonar, R. M. (2009). Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review. Information and software technology, 51(3), 555-563.10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Janković-Milić, V., & Stanković J. (2010). Bayesian approach to multi-criteria analysis in business decision making (in Serbian). Vrnjačka SpaSearch in Google Scholar

Jayant, A., Gupta, P., Garg, S. K., & Khan, M. (2014). TOPSIS-AHP based approach for selection of reverse logistics service provider: a case study of mobile phone industry. Procedia Engineering, 97, 2147-2156.10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.458Search in Google Scholar

Karande, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2014). A facility layout selection model using MACBETH method. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, January (pp. 7-9).Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J., & Moon, J. Y. (1997). An AHP & survey for selecting workflow management systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 6(2), 141-161.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199706)6:2<141::AID-ISAF122>3.0.CO;2-2Search in Google Scholar

Kim, K. Y., & Na, K. S. (2014). Business information system recovery priority decision using TOPSIS on interval data. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 16(2), 103-112.10.1108/JSIT-12-2013-0068Search in Google Scholar

Krstic, B., Petrovic, J., & Stanisic, T. (2015). Analysis of key indicators of economic dimensions of spas'sustainable development in Serbia as tourism destinations 4. Ekonomika, 61(3), 61.10.5937/ekonomika1503061KSearch in Google Scholar

Kundakcı, N. (2016). Combined Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach Based On Macbeth And Multi-MOORA Methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1).10.17093/aj.2016.4.1.5000178402Search in Google Scholar

Kundakcı, N., & Işık, A. (2016). Integration of MACBETH and COPRAS methods to select air compressor for a textile company. Decision Science Letters, 5(3), 381-394.10.5267/j.dsl.2016.2.003Search in Google Scholar

Lee, J. W., & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Computers & Operations Research, 27(4), 367-382.10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00057-XSearch in Google Scholar

Ma, J., Fan, Z. P., & Huang, L. H. (1999). A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operations Research, 112 (2), 397-404.10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00141-6Search in Google Scholar

Milićević, M.R. & Župac, G.Ž. (2012). Objektivni pristup određivanju težina kriterijuma. Vojnotehnički glasnik, 60(1), 39-56.10.5937/vojtehg1201039MSearch in Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. (2000). Increasing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine by embracing ehealth. Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 6(suppl 1), 16-19.10.1258/1357633001934500Search in Google Scholar

Ngai, E. W., & Chan, E. W. C. (2005). Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert systems with applications, 29(4), 889-899.10.1016/j.eswa.2005.06.025Search in Google Scholar

Pan American Health Organization (1998) Information Systems and Information Technology in Health: Challenges and Solutions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Health Services Information Systems Program, PAHO/WHO, Washington, DC; ISBN 9275 12246 6.Search in Google Scholar

Podvezko, V., & Sivilevičius, H. (2013). The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the significance of the interaction between the elements of a transport system having a strong influence on traffic safety. Transport, 28(4), 389-403.10.3846/16484142.2013.866980Search in Google Scholar

Pöyhönen, M., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2001). On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(3), 569-585.10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00467-1Search in Google Scholar

Pulipati, S. B., & Mattingly, S. P. (2013). Establishing criteria and their weights for evaluating transportation funding alternatives using a Delphi survey.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 104, 922-931.10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.187Search in Google Scholar

Rao, R. V. (2008). A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method. Materials & Design, 29(10), 1949-1954.10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.019Search in Google Scholar

Rao, R. V., & Davim, J. P. (2008). A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(7-8), 751-760.10.1007/s00170-006-0752-7Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, R., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Weight approximations in multi‐attribute decision models. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(6), 291-303.10.1002/mcda.320Search in Google Scholar

Rodrigues, R. J. (2000, April). Telemedicine and the transformation of healthcare practice in the information age. In Speakers' book of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Telecom Americas. Rio de Janeiro: Telecom Development Symposium, Session TDS (Vol. 2, pp. 91-105).Search in Google Scholar

Rodrigues, R. J. (2003). Opportunities and challenges in the deployment of global e-health. International journal of healthcare technology and management, 5(3-5), 335-358.10.1504/IJHTM.2003.004173Search in Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5Search in Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9-26.10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-ISearch in Google Scholar

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill.10.21236/ADA214804Search in Google Scholar

Srđević, B. (2005). Nepristrasna ocena značaja krtierijuma u višekriterijumskoj optimizaciji. Vodoprivreda, 37 (1-3), 53-58.Search in Google Scholar

Tan, J., & Payton, F. C. (2010). Adaptive health management information systems: Concepts, cases, & practical applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning.Search in Google Scholar

Teltumbde, A. (2000). A framework for evaluating ERP projects. International journal of production research, 38(17), 4507-4520.10.1080/00207540050205262Search in Google Scholar

Todorović, O., & Stanković, J. (2011). TOPSIS metoda kao sredstvo optimizacije odlučivanja u uslovima krize. Nauka i svetska ekonomska kriza, Niš: Ekonomski fakultetSearch in Google Scholar

Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research: Vol. 604. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, C. C., Chien, C. F., & Wang, M. J. J. (2005). An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection. International journal of production economics, 96(1), 47-62.10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.03.004Search in Google Scholar

Wu, J., Sun, J., Liang, L., & Zha, Y. (2011). Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5162-5165.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.046Search in Google Scholar

Xu, X. (2004). A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 530-532.10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00146-2Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, K., Hwang, C. (1995). Multiple attribute decision-making: an introduction. Sage Publisher10.4135/9781412985161Search in Google Scholar

Zaidan, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Al-Haiqi, A., Kiah, M. L. M., Hussain, M., & Abdulnabi, M. (2015). Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of biomedical informatics, 53, 390-404.10.1016/j.jbi.2014.11.012Search in Google Scholar

Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.10.1142/S0219622016500036Search in Google Scholar