[Allocating resources for cancer control--resolving multicriteria decision-making using the analytic hierarchy process].

When competing programs ought to be financed simultaneously for the same purpose, an allocation problem occurs due to scarce resources, and different perspectives and preferences. Facing the problem needs determining criteria which the decision might be based on. Those criteria form the objectives (the scope) of the different participants, and are relevant for the achievement of the goal, providing a comprehensive resource allocation that bridges and integrates the different perspectives. In case of cancer control primary prevention, secondary prevention, therapy and tertiary prevention, education, basic sciences, and clinical trials form the alternatives. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used for supporting decision-making in the resource allocation problem. AHP is a method for setting priorities, but can only work out the implications of what was declared through the pairwise-ranking process, namely the relative preferences, weighing the criteria and rating the alternatives two by two. In the first analysis the relative weights to criteria were 0.099 for 'distributive justice'; 0.120 for constitutional and human rights; 0.251 for lay opinion; 0.393 for EBM; 0.137 for cost-effectiveness. Ranking the alternatives using 'judgements' resulted in relative preference of 0.238 for therapy, 0.204 for primary prevention, 0.201 for secondary prevention, 0.135 for clinical trials, 0.111 for tertiary prevention, 0.066 for basic sciences and 0.045 for education. In the second analysis the relative importance of "cost-effectiveness" was doubled, thus resulting in 0.234 for therapy, 0.216 for secondary prevention, 0.183 for primary prevention, 0.145 for clinical trials, 0.113 for tertiary prevention, 0.063 for basic sciences and 0.046 for education. Sensitivity analysis has shown that increasing the relative weight of cost-effectiveness up to approximately 0.4 changes the rank of alternatives, and above 0.4 this criterion gives secondary prevention preferences. According to the relative rates computed in both of the models all criteria vote for therapy, but these preferences change at the high level of weights, in case of EBM, 'rights', and cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness prefers secondary prevention to therapy; the criterion of constitutional and human rights and the criterion of evidence-based medicine vote for primary prevention.