IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v39y2009i3p228-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pilot Model: Judging Alternate Modes of Dispensing Prophylaxis in Los Angeles County

Author

Listed:
  • Anke Richter

    (Defense Resources Management Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93943)

  • Sinan Khan

    (Emergency Preparedness and Response Program, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, California 90005)

Abstract

In large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles County (LAC), public health departments must supplement their traditional methods of dispensing prophylaxis to the general public in their jurisdictions during mass biological and chemical events. Although many alternate modes of dispensing are being discussed, a quantitative model to compare their relative advantages and disadvantages does not exist. We use multicriteria decision analysis to help the LAC Department of Public Health (DPH) assess the trade-offs associated with these alternate modes of dispensing oral prophylaxis. We found that one of the most hyped methods (drive-thru dispensing) is not a good choice for LAC. Our baseline analysis shows that the top two alternatives, dispensing through commercial pharmacies and dispensing through the United States Postal Service, are equally effective. Either alternative would be acceptable; the final decision could be made on either legal or political grounds. Our analysis provided the DPH with much insight into to its decision problem. It could become part of the justification of proposals for alternate dispensing plans to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, the DPH has hired a consulting firm to pursue business participation, including commercial pharmacies, for dispensing mass prophylaxis.

Suggested Citation

  • Anke Richter & Sinan Khan, 2009. "Pilot Model: Judging Alternate Modes of Dispensing Prophylaxis in Los Angeles County," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 228-240, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:39:y:2009:i:3:p:228-240
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.1080.0427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1080.0427
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.1080.0427?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leon, Orfelio G., 1997. "On the Death of SMART and the Birth of GRAPA," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 249-262, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ubaid Illahi & Mohammad Shafi Mir, 2021. "Maintaining efficient logistics and supply chain management operations during and after coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: learning from the past experiences," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11157-11178, August.
    2. Duijzer, Lotty Evertje & van Jaarsveld, Willem & Dekker, Rommert, 2018. "Literature review: The vaccine supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(1), pages 174-192.
    3. Hanane Allioui & Azzeddine Allioui & Youssef Mourdi, 2024. "Maintaining effective logistics management during and after COVID‑19 pandemic: survey on the importance of artificial intelligence to enhance recovery strategies," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(2), pages 918-962, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:39:y:2009:i:3:p:228-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.