|
KMID : 1170320130190040099
|
|
Korean Journal of Health Economics and Policy
2013 Volume.19 No. 4 p.99 ~ p.127
|
|
|
An Analysis of Relative Importance among Prescription Criteria Using the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
|
|
Song Jae-Do
Lee Sung-Hyun
Ji Ki-Won
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
The marketing activities of pharmaceutical industry focus heavily on the information delivery to individual doctors because of various regulations and characteristics of the industry. Analyzing the relative importance among prescription criteria of doctors can be helpful to rationalize the information delivery. This research categorized prescription criteria into 4 high-level criteria and 10 low-level criteria and analyzed the relative importance among criteria using the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). The criteria are followings: direct quality cues (medical effectiveness, stability, side effects), indirect quality cues (detailed information, company awareness, status of use among colleagues), private experience (prescription experience, patients impression of use), and convenience of patients (price level, convenience of taking). This research also considers the possibility that the relative importance can be different between a general situation and a specific disease situation. To see whether the difference occurs, this research analyzed the importance of prescription criterion in a general situation without designation of specific disease and in a specific disease situation with consideration of hyperpiesia. If the importance of prescription criteria differs in two situations, the prominence of the difference among brands in hyperpiesia medicine can explain the difference. Hence, this research also surveyed the prominence and tried to verify the hypothesis. This research categorized doctors into employed doctors and general practitioners, and into under-fifty-year-old and over-fifty-year-old. With the categorization, the differences in importance of prescription criteria were analyzed using the MANOVA. The research found several interesting results. Among 4 high-level criteria, the private experience was the most important. The second was direct quality cues and the third was convenience of patients. The least important one was indirect quality cues. The difference of importance evaluation between a general situation and a hyperpiesia situation was not statistically significant. The hypothesis, that the prominence of the difference among brands in hyperpiesia medicine can explain the difference, was not supported in all criteria. In addition, employed doctors evaluated convenience of patients more importantly than general practitioners. Finally, over-fifty-year-old evaluated convenience of patients more importantly and private experience less importantly than under-fifty-year-old. These results can contribute to the rationalization of information delivery activities by the pharmaceutical companies and to understanding the characteristics of doctors.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Prescription Criteria, Type of Physicians, Prominence, MANOVA
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|