Indexing
All Issues
Submission
Author Guidelines
Reviewers
Editorial Members
Publication Fee
Vol.6 , No. 1, Publication Date: Jul. 12, 2019, Page: 1-11
 option. The objectives were to present a useful instrument for academia decision-makers and to exemplify by identifying the most important criteria and alternative methods of education, from the receivers’ viewpoint. Using a survey the significant training activities were determined. Applying the direct percentage method, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) they were classified into three criteria: teaching, self-training and evaluation activities. Data was analyzed and classified using pair wise comparison matrixes and students’ preferences were determined. The consistency ratio values indicated the judgements had been correct and the consensus between respondents concerning the comparisons had been achieved. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicated the critical methods, those most sensible to survey participants’ changes of opinion that could affect the decision process: dictation, power point, interactions with students, individual learning based on lecturers’ presentations, browsing the entire material, debating and providing explanations for all topics of the subject and following the evaluation criteria previously established. AHP is a reliable tool in ranking alternatives and can be an important instrument for academic decision makers in managing the PET process.&picture=http://www.aascit.org/aascit/decorators/img/journal/910.jpg)
| [1] | Rais Cristina, Management, Marketing and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. |
| [2] | Tăerel Adriana-Elena, Management, Marketing and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. |
| [3] | Soroceanu Valentina, Management, Marketing and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. |
| [4] | Stancu Emilia, Management, Marketing and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. |
The aim of the paper was to identify students’ preferences for a best pharmaceutical education and training (PET) option. The objectives were to present a useful instrument for academia decision-makers and to exemplify by identifying the most important criteria and alternative methods of education, from the receivers’ viewpoint. Using a survey the significant training activities were determined. Applying the direct percentage method, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) they were classified into three criteria: teaching, self-training and evaluation activities. Data was analyzed and classified using pair wise comparison matrixes and students’ preferences were determined. The consistency ratio values indicated the judgements had been correct and the consensus between respondents concerning the comparisons had been achieved. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicated the critical methods, those most sensible to survey participants’ changes of opinion that could affect the decision process: dictation, power point, interactions with students, individual learning based on lecturers’ presentations, browsing the entire material, debating and providing explanations for all topics of the subject and following the evaluation criteria previously established. AHP is a reliable tool in ranking alternatives and can be an important instrument for academic decision makers in managing the PET process.
Keywords
Analytic Hierarchy Process, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, Pharmacy Education and Training, Sensitivity Analysis
Reference
| [01] | Boboia A., Feher L. A., Cuc S. AND Moldovan M. (2017). Comparative study between the sales of antiulcer drugs H2 Antagonists and Proton Pump Inhibitors. Farmacia, 65 (4): 635-642. |
| [02] | Csanádi M., Kaló Z., Prins C. P. J., Grélinger E., Menczelné Kiss A., Fricke F. U…Garrison L. P. (2018). The implications of external price referencing on pharmaceutical list prices in Europe. Health Policy and Technology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.07.005. |
| [03] | Danner M., Hummel M., Volz F., van Manen J. G., Wiegard B., Dintsios C-M., .... Ijzerman M. J. (2011). Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. IntJ. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27: 369–75. |
| [04] | Devlin N, Sussex J. (2011). Incorporating Multiple Criteria in HTA: Methods and Processes. (pp. 16-22). London: Office of Health Economics. |
| [05] | Diaby V., Campbell K and Goeree R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. OperRes Health Care 2: 20–4. |
| [06] | Goepel, K. D. (2018). Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10 (3): 469-487, https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590. |
| [07] | Gregory R., Failing L., Harstone M., Long G., McDaniels T. and Ohlson D (2012). Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices (pp. 93-149) John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. |
| [08] | Irfan S. (2013). Multicriteria Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis on Information Security International Journal of Computer Applications 69 (24): 0975-8887. |
| [09] | Ivlev I., Kneppo P. and Bartak M. (2014) Multi criteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 20: 576–89. |
| [10] | IQWiG (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care) 2015. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) – pilot project to elicit patient preferences in the indication “depression”. 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.iqwig.de/download/Executive-summary-of-working-paper_Analytic-Hierarchy-Process-pilot-project.pdf. |
| [11] | Kaksalan M., Wallenius J. and Zionts S. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific Publishing Limited, Singapore. |
| [12] | Keeney RL and Raiffa H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. |
| [13] | Krajnović D. M., Lević and Tăerel A. E. (2018). A short review of the professionals and general public attitudes and concerns about pharmacogenetic testing with the recognition of the pharmacists role. Farmacia, 66 (5): 770-777. |
| [14] | Marsh K., Lanitis T., Neasham D., Orfanos P. And Caro J. (2014). Assessing the value of health care interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: are view of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32: 345–65. |
| [15] | Marsh K, Izjerman M., Thokala P., Baltusen R., Boysen M., Kalo Z…Devlin N. (2016). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health 19 (2): 125-137. |
| [16] | Moisa C., Vlad A. M., Teușdea A., Cadar O., Hoaghia M. A., Stan R. L., ...Vicaș L. G. (2018). Randomized evaluation on the consumption of antibiotics in the community pharmacies. Farmacia, 66 (6): 1081-1090. |
| [17] | Oltean A. M. and Crișan O. (2018). Risk management in preventing medication errors in a community pharmacy. Farmacia, 66 (4): 725-732. |
| [18] | Rais C., Enăchescu D. and Carată A. (2011). Functional and structural modelling of the pharmacist’s professional development process in Bucharest Faculty of Pharmacy. Farmacia, 59 (4): 590-601. |
| [19] | Rais C., Anuța V., Rădulescu F., Prasacu I., Lupuleasa D., Atkinson J., Rombaut B. and Mircioiu C. (2014). Quality assurance PHAR-QA ERASMUS project. I. Contribution of Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest. Farmacia, 62 (2): 236-244. |
| [20] | Rais C., Tăerel A. E., Ștefănescu E., Brumărel M., Safta V., Adauji S..... Soroceanu V. (2016). Epidemiological and economic aspects of tuberculosis in adults in Romania versus the Republic of Moldova, Farmacia, 64 (4): 643-650. |
| [21] | Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1 (1): 83 – 98. |
| [22] | Saaty, T. L., Vargas, L. G. (2012). The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process, Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, International series in operations research & management science 175: 23 – 40, Springer ISBN 978-1-4614-3596-9. |
| [23] | Soroceanu V., Rais C., Ștefănescu E., Brumărel M., Safta V., Adauji S....... Tăerel A. E., (2016). Epidemiological and economic aspects of tuberculosis in children. A comparative analysis: Romania vs. The Republic of Moldova, Farmacia, 64 (1): 152-158. |
| [24] | Tăerel A. E., Soroceanu V. and Rais C. (2013). Trends in the evolution of the annual classified list of medicines between 1989-2012. Farmacia, 61 (5): 948-956. |
| [25] | Tervonen T., Naci H. van Valkenhoef G., Ades A. E., Angelis A., Hillege H. L. and Postmus D. (2015). Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among statins in primary prevention. Med. Decis. Making. 35: 859–71. |
| [26] | Thokala P., Devlin N., Marsh K., Baltusen R., Boysen M., Kalo Z,……Izjerman M. (2016). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA. Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health 19 (1): 1-13. |
| [27] | Tony M., Wagner M., Rindress D., Papastavros T., Oh P. and Goetghebeur M. M. (2011). Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv. Res. 11: 329. |
| [28] | Triantaphyllou E. and Sanchez A. (1997). A Sensitivity Analysis Approach For Some Deterministic Multi- Criteria Decision Making Methods. Decision Sciences, 28 (1): 151-194. |
| [29] | Triantaphyllou E. and Stuart H. M. (1995). Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process For Decision Making In Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. Intern. Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2 (1): 35-44. |
| [30] | Velasquez M. and Hester P. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, IJOR 10 (2): 56-66. |
