Drivers, Challenges, and Integration of Health 4.0 Societal Engagement: Evidence from Turkey

Abstract

In Turkey, a novel concept like Health 4.0 is a potential candidate seeking a solution. This paper aims to identify the scope of Health 4.0 via the perceptions gathered from appropriate vignettes with the focus of IoT stand and with the help of a qualitative approach in the first phase of the hybrid methodology. In the first phase of the study, the authors revealed the drivers and challenges of Health 4.0 by asking for the scope and awareness of Health 4.0. In the second phase of the study, the given replies to the vignettes (possible real-life scenarios) were classified into four main criteria that serve several challenges towards the adoption of Health 4.0, which were evaluated by the MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Category-Based Evaluation Technique) approach to identify main and sub-challenges towards the concept. In doing so, by analyzing in a multicriteria method, results would help to recheck and undermine the current debates around the Health 4.0 concept, helping to form many applicability levels in the future. The results revealed that security was the most important criteria followed by education, confidentiality, and the politics/manageability criteria as being the least important challenge.

Keywords

• Health 4.0
• Sustainable Integration
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• Strategic Management
• MACBETH

References

1. Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E., & Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 388–414.
2. Alshurafa, N., Xu, W., Liu, J. J., Huang, M.-C., Mortazavi, B., Roberts, C. K., & Sarrafzadeh, M. (2013). Designing a robust activity recognition framework for health and exergaming using wearable sensors. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 18(5), 1636–1646.
3. American Institution for Medical and Biological Engineering. (2019). Hall of Fame Innovations. Milestones of Innovations website, https://aimbe.org/milestones-of-innovation/
4. Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research. Methodology, 6(3), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014
5. Bana E Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J. (1997). Applications of the MACBETH approach in the framework of an additive aggregation model. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(2), 107–114.
6. Bana E Costa, C. A., Ensslin, L., Cornêa, É. C., & Vansnick, J.-C. (1999). Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. European Journal of Operational Research, 113(2), 315–335.
7. Cavanaugh, G. F., & Fritzsche, D. J. (1985). Using Vignettes in Business Ethics Research. In L.E. Preston (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (pp.279-293). Volume 7, JAI Press, Inc.
8. Cevizci, D. K. & Kayacan, O. (2019). Bir Konfeksiyon İşletmesinde MACBETH ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. DEUFMD, 21(62), 331-344.

9. Ercan, E. & Kundakcı,N. (2017). Bir Tekstil İşletmesi İçin Desen Programı Seçiminde ARAS ve OCRA Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması. Afyon Kocatepe Üniv Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 83-105
10. Hathaliya, J. J., & Tanwar, S. (2020). An exhaustive survey on security and privacy issues in Healthcare 4.0. Computer Communications, 153, 311-335.
11. Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016). Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3928–3937. IEEE.
12. Higher Education Council of Turkey. (2019). YÖK 100/2000 Project Announcement. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/DuyuruDetay.aspx?did=863
13. Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 382–386.
14. Kabalak, İ., Baysal, M. E., Sarucan, A., & Engin, O. (2016). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Tedarikçi Seçimi ve MACBETH Tekniğinin Bir Firmada Uygulaması’’. Uluslararası Katılımlı Üretim Araştırmaları Semp, 12-14.
15. Karande, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2014, January). A facility layout selection model using MACBETH method. In Bali, Indonesia: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (January 7-9).
16. Kundakcı, N. (2016). Combined multi-criteria decision making approach based on MACBETH and MULTI-MOORA methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1), 17-26.
17. Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260(1), 152–160.
18. Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. D. F. R., & Ramos, L. F. P. (2017). Past, present and future of Industry 4.0-a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research, 55(12), 3609-3629. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576
19. Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2019). In Search of Democracy 4.0: Is Democracy as we know it destined to die?. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 38(1), 32-42.
20. Meyer, A. C., Torssander, J., Talbäck, M., & Modig, K. (2019). Parents survive longer after stroke than childless individuals: a prospective cohort study of Swedes over the age of 65. European Journal of Public Health, 29(6), 1090–1095. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz053
21. Michael, K., Gokyer, D., & Abbas, S. (2018). Societal implications of wearable technology: Interpreting "trialability on the run". In Wearable Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1095-1117). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5484-4.ch050
22. Nair, A. & Dreyfus, D. (2018). Technology alignment in the presence of regulatory changes: The case of meaningful use of information technology in healthcare. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 110, 42-51.
23. National Information Board. (2014). Using Data and Technology to Transform Outcomes for Patients and Citizens A Framework for Action. In Personalised Health and Care 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384650/NIB_Report.pdf
24. Pang, Z., Yang, G., Khedri, R., & Zhang, Y.-T. (2018). Introduction to the special section: convergence of automation technology, biomedical engineering, and health informatics toward the healthcare 4.0. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 11, 249–259.
25. Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 1(3), 197–217.
26. Stevens, N., & Wernimont, J. (2018). Seeing 21st Century Data Bleed through the 15th Century Wound Man. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37(4), 46-54. [8558773]. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2876214
27. Taylor, B. J. (2005). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187–1207.
28. Thuemmler, C., & Bai, C. (2017). Health 4.0: How Virtualization and Big Data are Revolutionizing Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47617-9
29. Tortorella, G. L., Fogliatto, F. S., Mac Cawley Vergara, A., Vassolo, R., & Sawhney, R. (2020). Healthcare 4.0: trends, challenges and research directions. Production Planning & Control, 31(15), 1245-1260, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1702226
30. United Nations. (2006). Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and publicadministration. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022332.pdf
31. Wehde, M. (2019). Healthcare 4.0. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(3), 24-28.
32. Xu, Y. & Chen, M. (2017). An internet of things based framework to enhance just-in-time manufacturing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 232(13):2353–2363.https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0954405417731467
33. Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L. & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends, International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2941-2962.DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806
34. Yang, H., & Cui, Z. (2018). Unique journal: Bio-design and manufacturing. Springer.
35. Yıldırım, B. F., & Önder, E. (2015). İşletmeciler, Mühendisler ve Yöneticiler için Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri. Dora Yayınevi. Bursa.
36. Zhang, W., Ju, Y., & Liu, X. (2017). Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy programming technique for multicriteria group decision making based on Shapley values and incomplete preference information. Soft Computing, 21(19), 5787–5804.