IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/streco/v67y2023icp459-479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the impact of healthcare service risks on healthcare demand under evolving economic and social structures: An improved GLDS decision making method considering risk attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Jiang, Jing
  • Liu, Xinwang
  • Wang, Weizhong
  • Deveci, Muhammet

Abstract

Faced with backward and uneven economic conditions and an irrational and increasingly inequitable social structure, healthcare disparities are widening and the healthcare inequalities are expanding. This can lead to an increasing public demand for healthcare services, posing unprecedented risk, such as resource shortages, quality deterioration and rising healthcare costs. By identifying, managing, and optimizing the aforementioned risks within the healthcare system, it helps the healthcare system better address the challenges of expanding healthcare demands under evolving economic and social structure. To achieve this, this paper employs failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to identify severe failure modes in healthcare services. However, traditional FMEA methods possess limitations in assessing the dynamics of trust relationships and interaction effects among experts within social networks. Therefore, this paper proposes an improved gained and lost dominance score (GLDS) based social network decision-making method considering risk attitudes for FMEA to prioritize failure modes in healthcare services. First, transform linguistic risk assessment information from an interdisciplinary team of experts based on probabilistic linguistic term sets handle uncertain efficiently. Meanwhile, experts’ influence is reflected by an extended PageRank algorithm with trust degrees based on social networks analysis. Next, an improved GLDS method considering the differentiated risk attitudes of individuals and groups is developed to prioritize failure modes. Especially, to solve the problems of soft preference and incomparability relation among failure modes, which are ignored by the traditional GLDS method, a conflict analysis is established to determine the preference, indifference, and incomparability relations. Finally, the practicality of the proposed method is illustrated by the healthcare service risk case in the emergency department and the effectiveness of the developed method is validated by comparison and sensitivity experiments. The results suggest that failure to update labels showing patient severity promptly is the most dangerous. In addition, it would be more economically efficient to analyze the non-comparable failure modes facing different risk factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiang, Jing & Liu, Xinwang & Wang, Weizhong & Deveci, Muhammet, 2023. "Assessing the impact of healthcare service risks on healthcare demand under evolving economic and social structures: An improved GLDS decision making method considering risk attitudes," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 459-479.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:67:y:2023:i:c:p:459-479
    DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2023.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X23001200
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.09.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    2. Liu, Hu-Chen & You, Jian-Xin & Duan, Chun-Yan, 2019. "An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 163-172.
    3. Bortolotti, Luca & Biggeri, Mario, 2022. "Is the slowdown of China's economic growth affecting multidimensional well-being dynamics?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 478-489.
    4. Zheng, Qiaohong & Liu, Xinwang & Wang, Weizhong, 2023. "A consensus model-based risk matrix for human error factors risk analysis in medical devices by considering risk acceptability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    5. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.
    6. Deveci, Muhammet & Pamucar, Dragan & Gokasar, Ilgin & Isik, Mehtap & Coffman, D'Maris, 2022. "Fuzzy Einstein WASPAS approach for the economic and societal dynamics of the climate change mitigation strategies in urban mobility planning," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    7. Liu, Hu-Chen & Wang, Jing-Hui & Zhang, Ling & Zhang, Qi-Zhen, 2022. "New success likelihood index model for large group human reliability analysis considering noncooperative behaviors and social network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    9. Roubens, Marc, 1982. "Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 51-55, May.
    10. Xiaodi Liu & Zengwen Wang & Shitao Zhang, 2018. "A New Methodology for Hesitant Fuzzy Emergency Decision Making with Unknown Weight Information," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-12, November.
    11. Yuan Gao & Zhen Zhang, 2021. "Consensus reaching with non-cooperative behavior management for personalized individual semantics-based social network group decision making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(11), pages 2518-2535, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    2. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2017. "How regret moves individual and collective choices towards rationality," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 11, pages 188-204, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    5. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    6. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    7. Ming Li & Dipjyoti Majumdar, 2010. "A Psychologically Based Model of Voter Turnout," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(5), pages 979-1002, October.
    8. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Dominance of hybrid contratum strategies over momentum and contrarian strategies: half a century of evidence," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(4), pages 471-505, December.
    9. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    10. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    11. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    12. van Dijk, W.W. & Zeelenberg, M. & van der Pligt, J., 1999. "Not having what you want versus having what you don't want : The impact of the type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and related emotions," Other publications TiSEM 5d1661b1-db82-4773-8ac4-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    14. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    15. Starmer, Chris, 1999. "Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 5-15, February.
    16. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    17. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    18. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2011. "A Structural Model Of Turnout And Voting In Multiple Elections," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-245, April.
    19. Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1555-1576, November.
    20. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:67:y:2023:i:c:p:459-479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/525148 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.