See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Jun Zheng
The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0209-2060
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Medical endoscope is widely used in clinical practice for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment，occupying around 5% of the medical device market. Evaluating the true service level of medical endoscope is essential and necessary to improve overall performance of medical diagnosis and treatment, and to maintain competitiveness of endoscope manufacturers, however, such a tool is not available in the market. This study develops an Evaluation Index System (EIS) to assess service level of medical endoscope, and to provide suggestions for improving the service level through the Delphi method.
Methods: Firstly, the possible factors influencing the service level were identified from literature review. In parallel, the Delphi expert method questionnaire was designed and 25 experts were invited to conduct three rounds of questionnaire, to evaluate and rate the possible factors. Finally, we determined the weights associated with the factors, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and percentage method, and developed the service level EIS.
Results: The EIS consists of 3 first-level indicators, 24 second-level indicators and 68 third-level indicators. According to the weights computed using AHP, first-level indicators are ranked as post-sale (0.62), in-sale (0.25) and pre-sale (0.13). Through case verification, the medical endoscope brand Olympus had a total score of 4.17, Shanghai Aohua had a total score of 3.71, and Shanghai Chengyun had a total score of 3.28, which matches its market popularity and ranking in terms of market share. The results obtained from the EIS are consistent with the reality.
Conclusions: The EIS established in this study is comprehensive, reliable and reasonable with strong practicality. The EIS can act as a tool for the endoscope users to evaluate potential products and make informed choices. It also provides a measurable basis for endoscope manufacturers and service providers to improve service quality.
Keywords
Medical endoscope, Evaluation Index System, Delphi method
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 4
Posted 26 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 14 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 30 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 04 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 03 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 02 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Jun Zheng
The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0209-2060
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 4
Posted 26 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 14 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 30 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 04 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 03 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 02 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Background: Medical endoscope is widely used in clinical practice for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment，occupying around 5% of the medical device market. Evaluating the true service level of medical endoscope is essential and necessary to improve overall performance of medical diagnosis and treatment, and to maintain competitiveness of endoscope manufacturers, however, such a tool is not available in the market. This study develops an Evaluation Index System (EIS) to assess service level of medical endoscope, and to provide suggestions for improving the service level through the Delphi method.
Methods: Firstly, the possible factors influencing the service level were identified from literature review. In parallel, the Delphi expert method questionnaire was designed and 25 experts were invited to conduct three rounds of questionnaire, to evaluate and rate the possible factors. Finally, we determined the weights associated with the factors, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and percentage method, and developed the service level EIS.
Results: The EIS consists of 3 first-level indicators, 24 second-level indicators and 68 third-level indicators. According to the weights computed using AHP, first-level indicators are ranked as post-sale (0.62), in-sale (0.25) and pre-sale (0.13). Through case verification, the medical endoscope brand Olympus had a total score of 4.17, Shanghai Aohua had a total score of 3.71, and Shanghai Chengyun had a total score of 3.28, which matches its market popularity and ranking in terms of market share. The results obtained from the EIS are consistent with the reality.
Conclusions: The EIS established in this study is comprehensive, reliable and reasonable with strong practicality. The EIS can act as a tool for the endoscope users to evaluate potential products and make informed choices. It also provides a measurable basis for endoscope manufacturers and service providers to improve service quality.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...