4.7 Article

Identification of dominant risk factor involved in spread of COVID-19 using hesitant fuzzy MCDM methodology

期刊

RESULTS IN PHYSICS
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103811

关键词

Infectious; COVID-19; FAHP; Hesitant Fuzzy Sets (HFS)-TOPSIS; Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic since December 2019 has significantly impacted global health and economy. To contain the virus, evaluating and ranking risk factors is crucial. This study utilized the FAHP methodology to determine weights and applied HFS with TOPSIS to identify the major risk factor as prolonged contact with infected individuals, spread through hospitals and clinics, and verbal transmission. The research demonstrated the application of MCDM tools for evaluating the most significant risk factor and conducted a sensitivity analysis.
The outburst of the pandemic Coronavirus disease since December 2019, has severely impacted the health and economy worldwide. The epidemic is spreading fast through various means, as the virus is very infectious. Medical science is exploring a vaccine, only symptomatic treatment is possible at the moment. To contain the virus, it is required to categorize the risk factors and rank those in terms of contagion. This study aims to evaluate risk factors involved in the spread of COVID-19 and to rank them. In this work, we applied the methodology namely, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) to find out the weights and finally Hesitant Fuzzy Sets (HFS) with Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is applied to identify the major risk factor. The results showed that long duration of contact with the infected person the most significant risk factor, followed by spread through hospitals and clinic and verbal spread. We showed the appliance of the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) tools in evaluation of the most significant risk factor. Moreover, we conducted sensitivity analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据