Advertisement

OR Spectrum

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 349–370 | Cite as

The impact of client choice on preventive healthcare facility network design

  • Yue Zhang
  • Oded Berman
  • Vedat Verter
Regular Article

Abstract

In contrast with sick people who need urgent medical attention, the clientele of preventive healthcare have a choice in whether to participate in the programs offered in their region. In order to maximize the total participation to a preventive care program, it is important to incorporate how potential clients choose the facilities to patronize. We study the impact of client choice behavior on the configuration of a preventive care facility network and the resulting level of participation. To this end, we present two alternative models: in the “probabilistic-choice model” a client may patronize each facility with a certain probability, which increases with the attractiveness of the available facilities. In contrast, the “optimal-choice model” stipulates that each client will go to the most attractive facility. In this paper, we assume that the proximity to a facility is the only attractiveness attribute considered by clients. To ensure the quality of care, we impose a bound on the mean waiting time as well as a minimum workload requirement at each open facility. Subject to a total capacity limit, the number of open facilities as well as the location and the capacity (number of servers) of each open facility is the main determinant of the configuration of a facility network. Both models are formulated as a mixed-integer program. To solve the problems efficiently, we propose a probabilistic search algorithm and a genetic algorithm. Finally, we use the models to analyze the network of mammography centers in Montreal.

Keywords

Preventive care Client choice Network design Congestion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aboolian R, Berman O, Krass D (2007a) Competitive facility location model with concave demand. Eur J Oper Res 181: 598–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aboolian R, Berman O, Krass D (2007b) Competitive facility location and design problem. Eur J Oper Res 182: 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achabal DD, Gorr WL, Mahajan V (1982) MULTILOC: a multiple store location decision model. J Retailing 58(2): 5–25Google Scholar
  4. Berman O, Krass D (1998) Flow intercepting spatial interaction model: a new approach to optimal location of competitive facilities. Location Sci 6: 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman O, Krass D (2002) Locating multiple competitive facilities: spatial interaction models with variable expenditures. Ann Oper Res 111(1): 197–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman O, Drezner Z (2006) Location of congested capacitated facilities with distance sensitive demand. IIE Trans 38: 213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drezner T (1994) Optimal continuous location of a retail facility, facility attractiveness, and market share: an interactive model. J Retailing 70: 49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drezner T (1998) Location of multiple retail facilities with a limited budget. J Retailing Consumer Services 5: 173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drezner T, Drezner Z (2010) Modeling lost demand in competitive facility location. Working paper, California State University-FullertonGoogle Scholar
  10. Earle J, Sabirianova K (2002) How late to pay? Understanding wage arrears in Russia. J Labor Econ 20: 661–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Facione NC (1999) Breast cancer screening in relation to access to health services. Oncol Nursing Forum 26: 689–696Google Scholar
  12. Feachem GA, Sekhri NK, White KL (2002) Getting more for their dollar: a comparison of the NHS with California’s Kaiser Permanente. Br Med J 324: 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gupta S, Chintagunta PK, Kaul A, Wittink DR (1996) Do household scanner data provide representative inferences from brand choices: a comparison with store data. J Market Res 33: 383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  15. Huff DL (1962) Determination of intra-urban retail trade areas. Real Estate Research Program, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleinrock L (1975) Queueing system I: theory. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Marianov V, Serra D (1998) Probabilistic maximal covering location-allocation for congested system. J Region Sci 38: 401–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marianov V, Serra D (2002) Location-allocation of multiple-server service centers with constrained queues or waiting times. Ann Oper Res 111: 35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marianov V, Rios M, Icaza MJ (2008) Facility location for market capture when users rank facilities by shorter travel and waiting times. Eur J Oper Res 191: 32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of quantitative choice behavior. In: Zarembkar P (ed) Frontiers in economics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. McGurik MA, Forell FW (1984) Spatial patterns of hospital utilization: the impact of distance and time. Inquiry 21(1): 84–95Google Scholar
  22. McNoe B, Richardson AK, Elwood JM (1996) Factors affecting participation in mammography screening. N Z Med J 109: 359–362Google Scholar
  23. Meyer RJ, Eagle T (1982) Context-induced parameter instability in a disaggregate-stochastic model of store choice. J Market Res 19: 62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakanishi M, Cooper LG (1974) Parameter estimation for a multiplicative competitive interaction model: least squares approach. J Market Res 11(3): 303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Okunuki K, Okabe A (2002) Solving the huff-based competitive location model on a network with link-based demand. Ann Oper Res 111(1): 239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prime Minister of Canada (2007) http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1611
  27. Reeves CR (1995) Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Svitone EC, Garfield R, Vasconcelos MI, Craveiro VA (2000) Primary health care lessons for the Northeast of Brazil: the Agentes de Saude Program. Pan Am J Public Health 7: 293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verter V, Lapierre SD (2002) Location of preventive health care facilities. Ann Oper Res 110: 123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang Q, Batta R, Rump CM (2002) Algorithms for a facility location problem with stochastic customer demand and immobile servers. Ann Oper Res 111: 17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. World Health Organization (2002) Fact sheet No 172. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs172/en/index.html
  32. Zhang Y, Berman O, Verter V (2009) Incorporating congestion in preventive healthcare facility network design. Eur J Oper Res 198: 922–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Y, Berman O, Marcotte P, Verter V (2010) A bilevel model for preventive healthcare facility network design with congestion. IIE Trans 42: 865–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmerman S (1997) Factors influencing hispanic participation in prostate cancer screening. Oncol Nursing Forum 24: 499–504Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and InnovationThe University of ToledoToledoUSA
  2. 2.Rotman School of ManagementUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Desautels Faculty of ManagementMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations