SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Istanbul Business Research / 2021 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1

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

Ozum EGİLMEZ
Gozde KOCA
Pages
127–148
Publication Date
2021-06-16
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Turkey, a novel concept like Health 4.0 is a potential candidate seeking a solution.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Health 4.0 · Sustainable Integration · Multi-Criteria Decision Making

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

EGİLMEZ, O., KOCA, G. (2021). Drivers, Challenges, and Integration of Health 4.0 Societal Engagement: Evidence from Turkey. Istanbul Business Research, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1, 127–148. https://ajindex.com/articles/235477

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  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. American Institution for Medical and Biological Engineering. (2019). Hall of Fame Innovations. Milestones of Innovations website, https://aimbe.org/milestones-of-innovation/
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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,
  7. Inc. Cevizci, D. K. & Kayacan, O. (2019). Bir Konfeksiyon İşletmesinde MACBETH ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. DEUFMD, 21(62), 331-344.
  8. 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
  9. Hathaliya, J. J., & Tanwar, S. (2020). An exhaustive survey on security and privacy issues in Healthcare 4.0. Computer Communications, 153, 311-335.
  10. 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. Higher Education Council of Turkey. (2019). YÖK 100/2000 Project Announcement. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/DuyuruDetay.aspx?did=863
  11. Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 382–386.
  12. Kabalak, İ., Baysal, M. E., Sarucan, A., & Engin, O. (2016). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yön