Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Choice Model ; 44: 100371, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1936847

ABSTRACT

Published choice experiments linked to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic are analysed in a rapid review. The aim is to (i) document the diversity of topics as well as their temporal and geographical patterns of emergence, (ii) compare various elements of design quality across different sectors of applied economics, and (iii) identify potential signs of convergent validity across findings of comparable experiments. Of the N = 43 published choice experiments during the first two years of the pandemic, the majority identifies with health applications (n = 30), followed by transport-related applications (n = 10). Nearly 100,000 people across the world responded to pandemic-related discrete choice surveys. Within health applications, while the dominant theme, up until June 2020, was lockdown relaxation and tracing measures, the focus shifted abruptly to vaccine preference since then. Geographical origins of the health surveys were not diverse. Nearly 50% of all health surveys were conducted in only three countries, namely US, China and The Netherlands. Health applications exhibited stronger pre-testing and larger sample sizes compared to transport applications. Limited signs of convergent validity were identifiable. Within some applications, issues of temporal instability as well as hypothetical bias attributable to social desirability, protest response or policy consequentiality seemed likely to have affected the findings. Nevertheless, very few of the experiments implemented measures of hypothetical bias mitigation and those were limited to health studies. Our main conclusion is that swift administration of pandemic-related choice experiments has overall resulted in certain degrees of compromise in study quality, but this has been more so the case in relation to transport topics than health topics.

2.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management ; 52(3):261-284, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1764758

ABSTRACT

Purpose>The purpose of this research is to reveal consumer preferences towards innovative last-mile parcel delivery and more specifically unmanned aerial delivery drones, in comparison to traditional postal delivery (postie) and the recent rise of parcel lockers in Australia. The authors investigate competitive priorities and willingness to pay for key attributes of parcel delivery (mode, speed, method and time window), the role of contextual moderators such as parcel value and security and opportunities for logistics service providers in the growing e-commerce market.Design/methodology/approach>A survey involving stated choice experiments has been conducted among 709 respondents in urban Australia. The authors estimated panel error component logit models, derived consumer priorities and deployed 576 Monte Carlo simulations to forecast potential delivery mode market shares.Findings>The study results suggest that people prefer postie over drone delivery, all else equal, but that drone deliveries become competitive with large market shares if they live up to the premise that they can deliver faster and cheaper. Both drone and postie become less attractive relative to parcel lockers when there is no safe place to leave a parcel at a residence, highlighting the importance of situational context and infrastructure at the receiving end of last-mile delivery. The authors identified opportunities for chargeable add-on services, such as signature for postie and 2-h parcel deliveries for drones.Originality/value>The authors offer timely and novel insights into consumers preferences towards aerial drone parcel deliveries compared to postie and lockers. Going beyond the extant engineering/operations research literature, the authors provide a starting point and add new dimensions/moderators for last-mile parcel delivery choice analysis and empirical evidence of market potential and competitive attributes of innovative versus traditional parcel delivery alternatives.

3.
Scientometrics ; 125(3): 2695-2726, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-777987

ABSTRACT

During the current century, each major coronavirus outbreak has triggered a quick and immediate surge of academic publications on its respective topic. The spike in research publications following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, however, has been like no other. The global crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has mobilised scientific efforts at an unprecedented scale. In less than 5 months, more than 12,000 research items and in less than seven months, more than 30,000 items were indexed, while it is projected that the number could exceed 80,000 by the end of 2020, should the current trend continues. With the health crisis affecting all aspects of life, research on Covid-19 seems to have become a focal point of interest across many academic disciplines. Here, scientometric aspects of the Covid-19 literature are analysed and contrasted with those of the two previous major coronavirus diseases, i.e., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The focus is on the co-occurrence of key-terms, bibliographic coupling and citation relations of journals and collaborations between countries. Interesting recurring patterns across all three literatures were discovered. All three outbreaks have commonly generated three distinct cohorts of studies: (i) studies linked to public health response and epidemic control, (ii) studies on chemical constitution of the virus; and (iii) studies related to treatment, vaccine and clinical care. While studies affiliated with category (i) seem to have been relatively earliest to emerge, they have overall received relatively smaller number of citations compared to publications the two other categories. Covid-19 studies seem to have been disseminated across a broader variety of journals and across a more diverse range of subject areas. Clear links are observed between the geographical origins of each outbreak as well as the local geographical severity of each outbreak and the magnitude of research originated from regions. Covid-19 studies also display the involvement of authors from a broader variety of countries compared to SARS and MERS. Considering the speed at which the Covid-19-related literature is accumulating, an interesting dimension that warrants further exploration could be to assess if the quality and rigour of these publications have been affected.

4.
Saf Sci ; 129: 104806, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-197613

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 global pandemic has generated an abundance of research quickly following the outbreak. Within only a few months, more than a thousand studies on this topic have already appeared in the scientific literature. In this short review, we analyse the bibliometric aspects of these studies on a macro level, as well as those addressing Coronaviruses in general. Furthermore, through a scoping analysis of the literature on COVID-19, we identify the main safety-related dimensions that these studies have thus far addressed. Our findings show that across various research domains, and apart from the medical and clinical aspects such as the safety of vaccines and treatments, issues related to patient transport safety, occupational safety of healthcare professionals, biosafety of laboratories and facilities, social safety, food safety, and particularly mental/psychological health and domestic safety have thus far attracted most attention of the scientific community in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis also uncovers various potentially significant safety problems caused by this global health emergency which currently have attracted only limited scientific focus but may warrant more attention. These include matters such as cyber safety, economic safety, and supply-chain safety. These findings highlight why, from an academic research perspective, a holistic interdisciplinary approach and a collective scientific effort is required to help understand and mitigate the various safety impacts of this crisis whose implications reach far beyond the bio-medical risks. Such holistic safety-scientific understanding of the COVID-19 crisis can furthermore be instrumental to be better prepared for a future pandemic.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL