3.8 Article

INVESTIGATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES ACROSS IRANIAN PROVINCES

Journal

Publisher

AUSTRALIAN COLL HEALTH SERVICE MANAGEMENT
DOI: 10.24083/apjhm.v17i3.1673

Keywords

healthcare; accessibility; development level; numerical taxonomy; CRITIC; CoCoSo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the development and accessibility to healthcare services in Iranian provinces using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The findings revealed disparities in development and healthcare service distribution among provinces in Iran.
BACKGROUND: A country's health status and the accessibility by its people to various healthcare services represent important indicators of development. This study investigated the development of Iranian provinces and measured accessibility to healthcare services within them. METHODS: The study extracted data from the country's statistical yearbook over five years (2015-2019) and analyzed the data through multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. More specifically, numerical taxonomy was used to measure the level of development in each province, the CRITIC method helped to calculate the weights of the indicators, and the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method was employed to rank the Iranian provinces. RESULTS: The findings of taxonomy analysis demonstrated that provinces such as East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Tehran, Khorasan Razavi, Khuzestan, Fars, Kerman, Gilan, and Mazandaran were among the Iranian provinces that had reached satisfactory development. The ranking of the provinces using the CoCoSo method revealed that provinces such as Semnan, Yazd, Ilam, and South Khorasan were the most privileged regions in terms of accessibility to healthcare services. CONCLUSION: Comparing health indicators over different years showed that, despite the progress of all Iranian provinces, there were marked differences in the distribution of healthcare services across the country.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available