Mapping Vulnerability to Potential Crisis Events in Surabaya City: A GIS-Based Approach.

Background: This study aims to develop a vulnerability map for Surabaya using GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to assess the city's vulnerability to COVID-19. Methods: Six key factors influencing vulnerability were identified and their relative importance determined through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparison matrix. GIS was utilized to classify Surabaya's vulnerability into five levels: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. Results: The resulting vulnerability map provides essential insights for decision-makers, healthcare professionals, and disaster management teams. It enables strategic resource allocation, targeted interventions, and formulation of comprehensive response strategies tailored to specific needs of vulnerable districts. Conclusions: Through these measures, Surabaya can enhance its resilience and preparedness, ensuring the well-being of its residents in the face of potential emergency outbreaks.

Development of a Hospital-Stakeholder Collaboration Tool Using Mixed Methods to Assess Stakeholder Perspectives for Hospital Service Improvement.

Background: The purpose of this study was to develop the Hospital-Stakeholder Collaboration (HSC) Tool and Hospital Performance Factor (HPF) Tool to explore stakeholder perception and value for hospital service improvement. Methods: This exploratory mixed-method study involved three steps: initial tool development (Step 1), validity testing (Step 2), and module development (Step 3). In Step 1, qualitative data collection through literature reviews, focus group discussions, and interviews with hospital management experts led to the creation of the preliminary tools. Step 2 involved qualitative analysis by α 5-member expert panel, followed by quantitative analysis with 36 respondents for validity (Pearson correlation, α = 0.05) and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha, α = 0.6) tests. Step 3 encompassed the final module development. Results: The HSC tool contains 6 domains and the HPF tool contains 4 perspectives. The 6 HSC domains were: 1) stakeholder identification, 2) interactive dialogue, 3) commitment, 4) planning, 5) implementation, 6) change in action and behavior. The 4 HPF perspectives were: 1) stakeholder perspective, 2) financial perspective, 3) internal business process, and 4) staff and organizational capacity. The values of the HSC tool validity and reliability tests were around 0,0046 and around 0,995, respectively. Additionally, the values of the HPF tool validity and reliability tests were around 0,0062 and around 0,995, respectively. Conclusion: This study offers a practical tool for needs assessment for the improvement of service by analyzing direct feedback from hospital stakeholders and measuring hospital performance factors.