↓ Skip to main content

Which family physician should I choose? The analytic hierarchy process approach for ranking of criteria in the selection of a family physician

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Which family physician should I choose? The analytic hierarchy process approach for ranking of criteria in the selection of a family physician
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0183-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emel Kuruoglu, Dilek Guldal, Vildan Mevsim, Tolga Gunvar

Abstract

Choosing the most appropriate family physician (FP) for the individual, plays a fundamental role in primary care. The aim of this study is to determine the selection criteria for the patients in choosing their family doctors and priority ranking of these criteria by using the multi-criteria decision-making method of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. The study was planned and conducted in two phases. In the first phase, factors affecting the patients' decisions were revealed with a qualitative research. In the next phase, the priorities of FP selection criteria were determined by using AHP model. Criteria were compared in pairs. 96 patient were asked to fill the information forms which contains comparison scores in the Family Health Centres. According to the analysis of focus group discussions FP selection criteria were congregated in to five groups: Individual Characteristics, Patient-Doctor relationship, Professional characteristics, the Setting, and Ethical Characteristics. For each of the 96 participants, comparison matrixes were formed based on the scores of their information forms. Of these, models of only 5 (5.2 %) of the participants were consistent, in other words, they have been able to score consistent ranking. The consistency ratios (CR) were found to be smaller than 0.10. Therefore the comparison matrix of this new model, which was formed based on the medians of scores only given by these 5 participants, was consistent (CR = 0.06 < 0.10). According to comparison results; with a 0.467 value-weight, the most important criterion for choosing a family physician is his/her 'Professional characteristics'. Selection criteria for choosing a FP were put in a priority order by using AHP model. These criteria can be used as measures for selecting alternative FPs in further researches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Engineering 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,234,315
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,101
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,056
of 264,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.