Appraising healthcare systems’ efficiency in facing COVID-19 through data envelopment analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The healthcare system is a vital element for any community, as it extremely affects the socio-economic development of any country. The current study aims to assess the performance of the healthcare systems of the countries above fifty million citizens in facing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic since late December 2019. For this purpose, seven scenarios were adopted via the DEA methodology with six variables, which are the number of medical practitioners (doctors and nurses), hospital beds, Conducted Covid-19 tests, affected cases, recovered cases, and death cases. To shed light on the relative efficiency of drivers, the Tobit analysis was used. Besides, the study carried out various statistical tests for the DEA models' findings to validate the choice of the variables and the obtained scores. The DEA results reveal that less than half of the considered countries are relatively efficient. Moreover, the Tobit regression analysis showed that the main impact on the efficiency scores was due to the number of affected and recovered cases. Finally, the results of the tests of Spearman, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis H indicate the internal validity and robustness of the chosen DEA models. The current study findings raise important implications, which can be helpful for decision makers regarding continuous improvement of performance, in which the findings assert the importance of achieving the best practices regarding relative efficiency through the linkage between the healthcare systems’ resources, and the needed outputs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".