ArticleOmega2023
A resilient, robust transformation of healthcare systems to cope with COVID-19 through alternative resources.
Article in Omega, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing patient flow logistics: strategic challenges, tactical solutions, and future directions.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Traditional Chinese Medicine in COVID-19 Treatment: Integrating Ancient Wisdom with Modern Medicine.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- The role of the nursing workforce in health system resilience during disasters: a scoping review of empirical studies.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- A scenario-driven simulation approach to sustainable hospital resource management: aging society, pandemic preparedness and referral enhancement.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health and Health Care Experience in Those With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- A model of the organizational resilience of hospitals in emergencies and disasters.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Review on Panic Buying Behavior during Pandemics: Influencing Factors, Stockpiling, and Intervention Strategies.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Ethical leadership and nurses' job performance: the mediating role of self-compassion.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Dynamic fair balancing of COVID-19 patients over hospitals based on forecasts of bed occupancy.Omega · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic - as a massive disruption - has significantly increased the need for medical services putting an unprecedented strain on health systems. This study presents a robust location-allocation model under uncertainty to increase the resiliency of health systems by applying alternative resources, such as backup and field hospitals and student nurses. A multi-objective optimization model is developed to minimize the system's costs and maximize the satisfaction rate among medical staff and COVID-19 patients. A robust approach is provided to face the data uncertainty, and a new mathematical model is extended to linearize a nonlinear constraint. The ICU beds, ward beds, ventilators, and nurses are considered the four main capacity limitations of hospitals for admitting different types of COVID-19 patients. The sensitivity analysis is performed on a real-world case study to investigate the applicability of the proposed model. The results demonstrate the contribution of student nurses and backup and field hospitals in treating COVID-19 patients and provide more flexible decisions with lower risks in the system by managing the fluctuations in both the number of patients and available nurses. The results showed that a reduction in the number of available nurses incurs higher costs for the system and lower satisfaction among patients and nurses. Moreover, the backup and field hospitals and the medical staff elevated the system's resiliency. By allocating backup hospitals to COVID-19 patients, only 37% of severe patients were lost, and this rate fell to less than 5% after establishing field hospitals. Moreover, medical students and field hospitals curbed the costs and increased the satisfaction rate of nurses by 75%. Finally, the system was protected from failure by increasing the conservatism level. With a 2% growth in the price of robustness, the system saved 13%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.