COVİD-19 pandemisinde çok aşamalı VZA ile OECD ülkelerinin etkinlik analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 36 OECD ülkesinin Covid 19 pandemisi ile mücadeledeki etkinliklerini karşılaştırmaktır. Üç aşamalı Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) önerilmiştir. İlk aşama, covid öncesi durumu analiz ederken, bulaş kontrolü ve tıbbi tedavi aşamaları ise ülkelerin mevcut COVID durumunu değerlendirmektedir. Üç aşamalı modelde 8 adet girdi değişkeni, 3 adet ara değişken ve 3 adet çıktı değişkeni kullanılmıştır. Etkinlik analizi, çıktı yönelimli ve ölçeğe göre sabit getirili CCR ve ölçeğe göre değişken getirili BCC modelleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öncelikle herbir aşama için tüm ülkelerin etkinlik analizi yapılmıştır. Etkin sınırda olmayan ülkeler için hedef değerler hesaplanmıştır. Hedef değerler ve yüzde değişimler dikkate alınarak ülkelerin etkin sınıra ulaşabilmesi için önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Türkiye’nin Covid-öncesi ve tıbbi tedavi aşamalarında etkin olduğu, bulaş kontrolünde ise etkin olmadığı görülmüştür. Bulaş kontrolünde Türkiye’ye referans olan ülkelerle kıyaslama yapılarak önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Sonrasında duyarlılık analizi olarak nitelendirilebilecek bir çalışma ile aşamalara farklı ağırlıklar verilerek her ülke için bütünsel etkinlik puanları hesaplanmıştır. Covid öncesi ve Covid pandemi sürecini birlikte ele alan ve bütünsel etkinlik puanlarını hesaplayan çok aşamalı bir VZA çalışmasına rastlanmamıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok aşamalı VZA
• COVID-19 pandemisi
• OECD ülkeleri
• Etkinlik ölçümü

Efficiency analysis of OECD countries during COVID-19 pandemic using multi-stage DEA

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the efficiencies of 36 OECD countries in the fight against the COVID 19 pandemic. A three-stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is proposed. While the first stage analyzes the pre-covid situation, the contagion control and medical treatment stages evaluate the current COVID status of the countries. In the threestage model, 8 input, 3 intermediate and 3 output variables are used. Efficiency analysis was carried out using output-oriented and constant return to scale CCR model and variable return to scale BCC models. First of all, efficiency analysis was performed for all countries at each stage. Target values have been calculated for countries that are not on the efficient frontier. Considering the target values and percentage changes, suggestions were made for countries to reach the efficient frontier. It has been observed that Turkey is efficient in the pre-Covid and medical treatment stages, but inefficient in the contagion control. Suggestions have been made by comparing the countries that are in the reference position for Turkey in the contagion control stage. Afterwards, with a study that can be described as a sensitivity analysis, overall efficiency scores were calculated for each country by giving different weights to the stages. No multi-stage DEA study has been found that calculates overall efficiency scores and deals with the pre-Covid and Covid pandemic period together.

Keywords

• Multi-Stage DEA
• COVID-19 pandemic
• OECD countries
• Efficiency measurement

References

1. [1] Turkish Ministry of Health. “COVID-19 information page”. https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr/TR-66300/covid-19-nedir- .html (12.02.2021).
2. [2] World Health Organization (WHO). “Coronavirus budisease 2019 (COVID-19) dashboard”. https://covid19.who.int/ (13.02.2021).
3. [3] Jouzdani J, Shirouyehzad H. “Fight against COVID-19: what can be done in the case of Iran?”. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering, 7, 1-12, 2020.
4. [4] Donthu N, Yoo B. “Retail productivity assessment using Data Envelopment Analysis”. Journal of Retailing, 74, 89-105, 1998.
5. [5] Shirouyehzad H, Jouzdani J, Karimvand M. “Fight against COVID-19- A global efficiency evaluation based on contagion control and medical treatment”. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering, 7, 109-120, 2020.
6. [6] Hadad S, Hadad Y, Tuva TS. “Determinants of healthcare system’s efficiency in OECD countries”. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 253-265, 2013.
7. [7] Ozcan YA, Khushalani J. “Assessing efficiency of public health and medical care provision in OECD countries after a decade of reform”. Health Administration Publications, 25, 325-343, 2017.
8. [8] Retzlaff-Roberts D, Chang CF, Rubin MR. “Technical efficiency in the use of health care resources: a comparison of OECD countries”. Health Policy, 69, 55-72, 2004.

9. [9] Chen Z, Chen X, Gan X, Bai K, Balezentis T. “Technical efficiency of regional public hospitals in China based on the three-stage DEA”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 1-17, 2020.
10. [10] Gavurova B, Kocisova K. “The efficiency of hospitals: platform for sustainable health care system”. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 8, 133-146, 2020.
11. [11] Ilgun G, Sahin B. “Investigation of factors affecting efficiency of primary healthcare in Turkey with two-stage data envelopment analysis”. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 15(1), 45-51, 2022.
12. [12] Alfiero S, Brescia V, Bert F. “Intellectual capital-based performance improvement: a study in healthcare sector”. BMC Health Services Research, 21, 1-15, 2021.
13. [13] Ortega-Díaz I, Ocaña-Riola R, Pérez-Romero C, MartínMartín J. “Multilevel analysis of the relationship between ownership structure and technical efficiency frontier in the Spanish National Health System Hospitals”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 1-18, 2020.
14. [14] Top M, Konca M, Sapaz B. “Technical efficiency of healthcare systems in African countries: an application based on data envelopment analysis”. Health Policy and Technology, 9, 62-68, 2020.
15. [15] Alsabah AM, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Skordis J. “Measuring the efficiency of public hospitals in Kuwait: a two-stage data envelopment analysis and a qualitative survey study”. Global Journal of Health Science, 12, 121-136, 2020.
16. [16] Kamel MA, Mousa ME-S. “Measuring operational efficiency of isolation hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic using data envelopment analysis: a case of Egypt”. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(7), 2178-2201, 2021.
17. [17] Nepomuceno TCC, Silva WMN, Nepomuceno KTC, Barros IKF. “A DEA-based complexity of needs approach for hospital beds evacuation during the COVID-19 outbreak”. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2020, 1-9, 2020.
18. [18] Mattiuzzi C, Lippi G, Henry BM. “Healthcare indicators associated with COVID-19 death rates in the European Union”. Public Health, 193, 41-41, 2021.
19. [19] World Health Organization. “Compliance with the International Health Regulations”. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicat or-details/GHO/-average-of-13 (24.11.2020).
20. [20] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444, 1978.
21. [21] Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. “Some models for estimating technical scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis”. Management Science, 30, 1078-1092, 1984.
22. [22] Korhonen P. Searching the Efficient Frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis. Editors: Bouyssou, D, JacquetLagrèze, E, Perny, P, Słowiński, R, Vanderpooten, D, Vincke, P. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 4-24, Springer, Boston, MA, 2002.
23. [23] World Health Organization. “Countries”. https://www.who.int/countries/(23.02.2021).
24. [24] Wikipedia. “List of IOC Country Codes”. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOC_%C3%BClke_kodlar% C4%B1_listesi (07.02.2021).
25. [25] Cooper WW, Seiford ML. Data Envelopment Analysis A Comprehensive Text With Models, Applications, References And Dea Solver Software. 2nd ed. New York, USA, Springer, 2007.
26. [26] Dyckhoff H, Allenn K. “Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA) “. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 312-325, 2001.
27. [27] World Health Organization. “Health Expenditure Database”. https://apps.who.int/nha/database/country_profile/Ind ex/en (15.12. 2020).
28. [28] World Health Organization. “Compliance with the International Health Regulations”. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.UHCIHRv (15.12. 2020).
29. [29] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “Database Access”. https://stats.oecd.org/ (15.12. 2020).
30. [30] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “Health at a Glance 2019 Report”. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-at-a-glanceG19991312.htm (15.12. 2020).
31. [31] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “Beyond Containment: Health Systems Responses to COVID-19 in the OECD”. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy responses /beyond-containment-health-systems responses-tocovid-19-in-the-oecd-6ab740c0/ (15.12. 2020).
32. [32] United Nations Statistics Division. “Population density and Urbanization”.https://population.un.org/wpp/Download /Standard/Population/ (15.12. 2020).
33. [33] Worldometer. “Countries Tables”. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countrie s (09.01.2021).
34. [34] Efficiency Measurement System. “A data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Software”. http://www.holgerscheel.de/ems/ (21.09. 2020).
35. [35] Buruk Şahin Y, Aktar Demirtaş E, Burnak, N. “Mixture design: A review of recent applications in the food industry”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(4), 297-304, 2016.