The mediation effect of total quality management on the relationship between master production schedul-ing and blood transfusion sustainability in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to examine the relationship between determinants of blood transfusion sustainability (BTS) that is master production scheduling (MPS) and total quality management (TQM) of Uganda. The study was founded on four objectives. The study looked at the direct relationship between MPS and the BTS, direct relationship between MPS and TQM, direct relationship between TQM and BTS. It also assessed how TQM mediated the direct relationship between MPS and BTS. The study used a quantitative method. A survey questionnaire was administered to collect data from 367 staff of regional blood banks and government university teaching hospital blood banks; and 213 were found to be usable. The main analysis was done using structural equation modeling. The study found that MPS had a positive and significant relationship with the BTS. The study found that the relationship between MPS and TQM was positive and significant. The study also found that the relationship between TQM and BTS was positive and significant. The study concluded that the effect of MPS on BTS was not mediated by TQM. It was recommended that blood banks seeking to achieve transfusion sustainability must invest in understanding the sector in which they operate. This includes understanding the blood demand requirement, customer focus, people involvement and timely delivery. The various stakeholders in the blood supply chain i.e. blood banks, hospital blood banks, funding agents, ministry of health, must also integrate to enhance the transfusion sustainability. Blood banks performance measures essentially timely delivery was very critical for saving lives of patients in need of blood. The study has provided a new conceptual framework that investigates the TQM mediating effect on the relationship of MPS and BTS, and thus can serve as an incentive for more research to be conducted in this regard in blood banks of different developing countries. The authors also proposed identifying the effect of other TQM factors such as process management, system management, supplier relationship and top management on BTS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".