Application of FITradeoff in Public Health Waste Management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24023/FutureJournal/2175-5825/2026.v18i1.942Keywords:
Decisão multicritério, Gestão pública, FITradeoff, sustentabilidadeAbstract
Purpose – This study aims to apply the FITradeoff multicriteria method to support the selection of a recycling cooperative to partner with a municipal public pharmacy, considering operational, social, and environmental criteria within the scope of public management.
Theoretical framework – The research is grounded in the Theory of Multicriteria Decision Aid (MCDA), with emphasis on the FITradeoff method, which allows integrating qualitative and quantitative criteria in decision-making processes under uncertainty and partial preferences.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative case study was conducted involving the modeling of decision-maker preferences, structuring of evaluation criteria, and comparative analysis of alternatives using the FITradeoff Decision Support System, based on real institutional data.
Findings – The application led to the identification of the alternative most aligned with the pharmacy’s priorities, balancing technical performance and social impact. The decision was validated through sensitivity analysis and a holistic review by the decision-maker, confirming the model’s robustness and alignment with institutional values.
Research, Practical & Social implications – The study demonstrates the method’s suitability for complex public decisions involving structured and unstructured data, with implications for the advancement of sustainable and socially responsible practices. It also supports the standardization of decision processes in public administration.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the literature by adapting the FITradeoff method to contexts involving social partnerships and public health services. It reinforces the methodological value of MCDA tools in public governance and extends their applicability to sustainability-driven decisions.
Downloads
References
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4_11
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. (2006). Manual de gerenciamento de resíduos de serviços de saúde (Série A. Normas e Manuais Técnicos, 182 p.). Ministério da Saúde.https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/manual-gerenciamento-dos-residuos-de-servicos-de-saude.pdf/view
Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016). Resolução nº 510, de 07 de abril de 2016. Brasília, DF: Autor.https://www.gov.br/conselho-nacional-de-saude/pt-br/atos-normativos/resolucoes/2016/resolucao-no-510.pdf/view
de Almeida, A. T. (2013). Processo de decisão nas organizações: construindo modelos de decisão multicritério (1ª ed., 256p.). São Paulo: Atlas.
de Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C., Alencar, M., Ferreira, R. J. P., & Garcez, T. V. (2015). Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17969-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17969-8
de Almeida, A. T., de Almeida, J. A., Costa, A. P. C. S., & de Almeida Filho, A. T. (2016). A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058
de Almeida, A. T., Frej, E. A., Roselli, L. R. P., & Costa, A. P. C. S. (2023). A summary on FITradeoff method with methodological and practical developments and future perspectives. Pesquisa Operacional, 43(spe1), e268356.https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2023.043spe1.00268356
Diaby, V., & Goeree, R. (2013). How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: A step-by-step guide. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 14(1), 81–99.https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.859525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.859525
Fernandes, A. M., Santos, J. P. da S., Vieira, F. T., Costa, R. de O. B., & Prat, B. V. (2023). Avaliação de softwares desenvolvidos para apoio à análise de decisão multicritério (MCDA). Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo, 15(11), 14897–14918. https://doi.org/10.55905/cuadv15n11-104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55905/cuadv15n11-104
Frazão, T. D. C., Camilo, D. G. G., Cabral, E. L. S., & Souza, R. P. (2018). Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 18(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0663-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0663-1
Frej, E. A., de Almeida, A. T., & Costa, A. P. C. S. (2019). Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation. Operational Research, 19(5), 909–931.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-00444-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-00444-2
Gil, A. C. (2022). Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa (7a ed.). Barueri, SP: Atlas.
Lima, M. F. M. G. de. (2022). Avanços metodológicos no método FITradeoff para problemática de classificação: incorporação de procedimento para elicitação de perfis e análise de sensibilidade (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brasil.
Machado e Silva, V. P., & Capanema, L. X. de L. (2019). Políticas públicas na gestão de resíduos sólidos: experiências comparadas e desafios para o Brasil. BNDES Setorial, 25(50), 153-200.https://web.bndes.gov.br/bib/jspui/bitstream/1408/19062/1/PRArt214971_Pol%C3%ADticas%20p%C3%BAblicas%20na%20gest%C3%A3o%20de%20res%C3%ADduos%20s%C3%B3lidos_P_BD.pdf
Marques, A. C., Frej, E. A., & de Almeida, A. T. (2022). Multicriteria decision support for project portfolio selection with the FITradeoff method. Omega, 111, 102661.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102661
Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230(1–3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023
Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1
Silva, E. L. da, & Menezes, E. M. (2005). Metodologia da pesquisa e elaboração de dissertação (4a ed.). Florianópolis, SC: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Souza, A., Santos, M., & Cintra, M. (2018). Análise de decisão multicritérios (MCDA): Uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na avaliação de tecnologias em saúde. Jornal Brasileiro de Economia da Saúde, 10(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.21115/jbes.v10.n1.p64-74 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21115/JBES.v10.n1.p64-74
Szigethy, L., & Antenor, S. (2020, 9 de julho). Resíduos sólidos urbanos no Brasil: desafios tecnológicos, políticos e econômicos. Centro de Pesquisa em Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade (IPEA).https://www.ipea.gov.br/cts/pt/central-de-conteudo/artigos/artigos/217-residuos-solidos-urbanos-no-brasil-desafios-tecnologicos-politicos-e-economicos
Teixeira, A., Frej, E. A., Reis, L., & Paula, A. (2023). A summary on FITradeoff method with methodological and practical developments and future perspectives. Pesquisa Operacional, 43(spe1), e268356. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2023.043spe1.00268356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2023.043spe1.00268356
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Atribuição NãoComercial SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
• 9 The authors commit to serving as reviewers for the journal: As a form of reciprocity with the academic community, Future Studies reinforces the commitment that authors of accepted articles have to act as reviewers for manuscripts submitted to the journal.
