|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| Telemedicine is increasingly used in the modern health care system because it provides health care services to patients amidst distant locations. However, the prioritisation process for patients with multiple chronic diseases (MCDs) over telemedicine is becoming increasingly complex due to diverse and big data generated from multiple disease conditions. To solve such a problem, massive datasets must be collected, and high velocity must be acquired, specifically in real-time processing. This process requires decision-making (DM) regarding the emergency degree of each chronic disease for every patient. Multi-criteria decisionmaking (MCDM) approaches (i.e. direct aggregation, distance measurement and compromise ranking) are the main solutions for dealing with this complex situation. However, each MCDM approach provides a unique rank from those of other methods. By far, the preferred DM approach that can provide an ideal rank better than other approaches has not been established. This study proposes an extension of the technique for reorganising opinion order to interval levels (TROOIL). Such an extension is called Hybrid DM and Voting Method (HDMVM) which is based on different DM approaches (i.e. direct aggregation, distance measurement and compromise ranking). HDMVM is used to prioritise big data of patients with MCDs in real-time through the remote health-monitoring procedure. In this paper, we propose a methodology that is based on three sequential stages. The first stage illustrates how the big data of patients with MCDs can be recognised in the telemedicine environment and identifies the target telemedicine tier in this study. The second stage describes the steps of the proposed HDMVM sequentially. The third stage applies the proposed method by prioritising the case study of big data of patients with MCDs based on the above DM approaches. Moreover, dataset of remote patients with MCDs (n = 500) is adopted, which contains three diseases, namely, chronic heart diseases and high and low blood pressures. The prioritisation results vary among direct aggregation, distance measurement and compromise approaches. The proposed HDMVM effectively provides a uniform and final ranking result for big data of patients with MCDs. A statistical method (i.e. mean) is performed to objectively validate the ranking results. Significant differences between the scores of the groups are identified in the objective validation, signifying identical ranking results. The evaluation of the proposed work with the benchmark study indicates that this study has tackled issues relevant to big data and diversity of MCDM approaches in the prioritisation of patients with MCDs.
|
| References |
[1] J. M. Sims, ‘‘Communities of practice: Telemedicine and online medical communities,’’ Technol. Forecasting Social Change, vol. 126, pp. 53–63, Jan. 2018. [2] A. S. Tenforde, J. E. Hefner, J. E. Kodish-Wachs, M. A. Iaccarino, and S. Paganoni, ‘‘Telehealth in physical medicine and rehabilitation: A narrative review,’’ PM R, vol. 9, pp. S51–S58, May 2017. [3] S. T. Ahmed, M. Sandhya, and S. Sankar, ‘‘An optimized RTSRV machine learning algorithm for biomedical signal transmission and regeneration for telemedicine environment,’’ Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 152, pp. 140–149,2019. [4] N. Kalid, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, Omar H. Salman, M. Hashim, O. S. Albahri, and A. S. Albahri, ‘‘Based on real time remote health monitoring systems: A new approach for prioritization ‘large scales data’ patients with chronic heart diseases using body sensors and communication technology,’’ J. Med. Syst., vol. 42, no. 4, p. 69, 2018. [5] Y. Fan, P. Xu, H. Jin, J. Ma, and L. Qin, ‘‘Vital sign measurement in telemedicine rehabilitation based on intelligent wearable medical devices,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 54819–54823, 2019. [6] M. Donati, A. Celli, A. Ruiu, S. Saponara, and L. Fanucci, ‘‘A telemedicine service system exploiting BT/BLE wireless sensors for remote management of chronic patients,’’ Technologies, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 13, 2019. [7] M. Volterrani and B. Sposato, ‘‘Remote monitoring and telemedicine,’’ Eur. Heart J. Supplements, vol. 21, pp. M54–M56, Dec. 2019. [8] C. H. McKee, R. W. Heffernan, B. D. Willenbring, R. B. Schwartz, J. M. Liu, M. R. Colella, and E. B. Lerner, ‘‘Comparing the accuracy of mass casualty triage systems when used in an adult population,’’ Prehospital Emergency Care, pp. 1–8, Jul. 2019. [9] J. S. Hinson, D. A. Martinez, P. S. K. Schmitz, M. Toerper, D. Radu, J. Scheulen, S. A. Stewart de Ramirez, and S. Levin, ‘‘Accuracy of emergency department triage using the emergency severity index and independent predictors of under-triage and over-triage in Brazil: A retrospective cohort analysis,’’ Int. J. Emergency Med., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3, Dec. 2018. [10] N. Falconer, M. Barras, and N. Cottrell, ‘‘How hospital pharmacists prioritise patients at high-risk for medication harm,’’ Res. Social Administ. Pharmacy, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1266–1273, Oct. 2019. [11] E. A. Cicolo, F. A. Nishi, and H. H. C. Peres, ‘‘Effectiveness of the Manchester triage system on time to treatment in the emergency department: A systematic review,’’ JBI Evidence Synth., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 56–73, 2020. [12] A. MahmoumGonbadi, Y. Katebi, and A. Doniavi, ‘‘A generic two-stage fuzzy inference system for dynamic prioritization of customers,’’ Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 131, pp. 240–253, Oct. 2019. [13] F. Aqlan and L. Al-Fandi, ‘‘Prioritizing process improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments,’’ Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 196, pp. 261–268, Feb. 2018. [14] O. H. Salman, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, Naserkalid, and M. Hashim, ‘‘Novel methodology for triage and prioritizing using ‘big data’ patients with chronic heart diseases through telemedicine environmental,’’ Int.J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1211–1245, 2017. [15] P.-T. Chen, ‘‘Medical big data applications: Intertwined effects and effective resource allocation strategies identified through IRA-NRM analysis,’’ Technol. Forecasting Social Change, vol. 130, pp. 150–164, May 2018. [16] N. Kalid, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, O. H. Salman, M. Hashim, and H. Muzammil, ‘‘Based real time remote health monitoring systems: A review on patients prioritization and related ‘big data’ using body sensors information and communication technology,’’ J. Med. Syst., vol. 42, no. 2, p. 30, 2018. [17] A. Glaize, A. Duenas, C. Di Martinelly, and I. Fagnot, ‘‘Healthcare decision-making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review,’’ J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal., vol. 26, nos. 1–2, pp. 62–83, Jan. 2019. [18] J.-H. He and F.-Y. Ji, ‘‘Two-scale mathematics and fractional calculus for thermodynamics,’’ Thermal Sci., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2131–2133, 2019. [19] E. Hofmann, ‘‘Big data and supply chain decisions: The impact of volume, variety and velocity properties on the bullwhip effect,’’ Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 55, no. 17, pp. 5108–5126, Sep. 2017. [20] Y. Kumar, K. Sood, S. Kaul, and R. Vasuja, ‘‘Big data analytics and its benefits in healthcare,’’ in Big Data Analytics in Healthcare. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020, pp. 3–21. [21] K. I. Mohammed, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, O. S. Albahri, A. S. Albahri, M. A. Alsalem, and A. H. Mohsin, ‘‘Novel technique for reorganisation of opinion order to interval levels for solving several instances representing prioritisation in patients with multiple chronic diseases,’’ Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., vol. 185, Mar. 2020, Art. no. 105151. [22] H. Nurmi, ‘‘An overview and re-interpretation of paradoxes of responsiveness,’’ in Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-Making and Consensus Modeling. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, pp. 21–31. [23] Z. Neisani Samani, M. Karimi, and A. Alesheikh, ‘‘A novel approach to site selection: Collaborative multi-criteria decision making through geo-social network (case study: Public Parking),’’ ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 82, 2018. [24] A. Darmann, J. Grundner, and C. Klamler, ‘‘Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules,’’ Eur. J. Political Economy, vol. 59, pp. 345–353, Sep. 2019. [25] S. Barak and T. Mokfi, ‘‘Evaluation and selection of clustering methods using a hybrid group MCDM,’’ Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 138, Dec. 2019, Art. no. 112817. [26] Y. He and H. Jung, ‘‘A voting TOPSIS approach for determining the priorities of areas damaged in disasters,’’ Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 1607, 2018. [27] J. Ouenniche, B. Pérez-Gladish, and K. Bouslah, ‘‘An out-of-sample framework for TOPSIS-based classifiers with application in bankruptcy prediction,’’ Technol. Forecasting Social Change, vol. 131, pp. 111–116, Jun. 2018. [28] M. A. Budhi and R. Wardoyo, ‘‘Group decision support system determination of best employee using Topsis and Borda,’’ Indonesian J. Comput. Cybern. Syst., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 165–176, 2017. [29] W. Serrai, A. Abdelli, L. Mokdad, and Y. Hammal, ‘‘Towards an efficient and a more accurate Web service selection using MCDM methods,’’ J. Comput. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 253–267, Sep. 2017. [30] A. Roozbahani, E. Ebrahimi, and M. E. Banihabib, ‘‘A framework for ground water management based on Bayesian network and MCDM techniques,’’ Water Resour. Manage., vol. 32, no. 15, pp. 4985–5005, Dec. 2018. [31] K. N. Griggs, O. Ossipova, C. P. Kohlios, A. N. Baccarini, E. A. Howson, and T. Hayajneh, ‘‘Healthcare blockchain system using smart contracts for secure automated remote patient monitoring,’’ J. Med. Syst., vol. 42, no. 7, p. 130, Jul. 2018. [32] T. L. Saaty and D. Ergu, ‘‘When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods,’’ Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making, vol. 14, no. 06, pp. 1171 1187, Nov. 2015.
|
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |