المستخلص: |
Different health planning applications can be utilised to resolve different types of supply and demand questions. This research compares the results from four commonly available supply and demand models when applied to the same supply and demand question: representing the Minimise Impedance (MI P-median Model), the Minimise Facility (MF), the Maximal Covering (MC) and the Maximise Attendance (MA) models. The aim is to provide an in depth understanding of the spatial planning implications associated with the assumptions embedded in each of the models, and thereby to provide a greater insight into the appropriateness of specific approaches to quantifying and optimising public health facility locations and access to them. The results demonstrates that despite different assumptions underpinning the MI p-median and MC models, the two models provided similar results in terms of facilities and demand selection. The MF model identified a different set of facility locations because it identifies the lowest number of services necessary to serve all the demand points within the distance specified. The MA model produced different results to the MI p-median, MC and MF models in terms of facilities and demand selection when applied across a small number of facilities. Three models produced different 33 facility selections depending on the three distances used. Supply and demand are used to optimise facility locations by minimising the total demand weighted distance. This research has shown that different models will produce different results. Understanding and verification of these differences are important generating evidence in support of health care planning.
|