Table 2.
Summary of the available decision-making approaches for HCW management
| Author(s) and year | Research focus | GDM | Environment | SA | CA | Method(s) | Country/Area | Crit | Alt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chauhan and Singh (2016) | Landfill location selection | No | Fuzzy | No | No | ISM, AHP, TOPSIS | India | 8 | 7 |
| Voudrias (2016) | Treatment technology evaluation | No | Crisp | Yes | No | AHP | IE | 16 | 5 |
| Hariz et al. (2017) | Waste-to-energy plant location selection | No | Crisp | No | No | GIS, AHP, PROMETHEE | Kenya | 8 | 8 |
| Thakur and Ramesh (2017) | Disposal strategy selection | Yes | Grey | No | No | AHP | India | 6 | 2 |
| Chauhan et al. (2018) | Disposal practice performance assessment | No | Crisp | No | No | AHP, TOPSIS | IE | 16 | 6 |
| Hinduja and Pandey (2019) | Treatment technology evaluation | Yes | Intuitionistic fuzzy | Yes | No | DEMATEL, ANP, AHP | India | 12 | 6 |
| Ishtiaq et al. (2018) | Disposal provider factor evaluation | Yes | Crisp | No | No | AHP | Pakistan | 18 | – |
| Aung et al. (2019) | Treatment performance assessment | No | Crisp | No | No | AHP, ANP | Myanmar | 6 | 8 |
| Nursetyowati et al. (2019) | Management strategy selection | Yes | Crisp | No | No | AHP | Indonesia | 9 | 3 |
| Li et al. (2020) | Treatment technology evaluation | Yes | IVF | No | No | DEMATEL, TOPSIS | China | 5 | 4 |
| Mishra, Mardani, et al. (2020) | Treatment technology evaluation | Yes | Intuitionistic fuzzy | No | Yes | DVM, EDAS | India | 6 | 4 |
| Mishra, Rani, et al. (2020) | Recycling center location selection | Yes | IVIF | Yes | Yes | DVM, CRE, COPRAS | USA | 4 | 5 |
| Azizkhani et al. (2021) | Treatment technology evaluation | Yes | Crisp | No | No | AHP, TOPSIS | Iran | 12 | 6 |
| Chauhan and Singh (2021) | Disposal provider selection | No | Crisp | No | No | DEMATEL, ANP, LP | India | 10 | 3 |
| Chauhan et al. (2021) | Smart disposal factor evaluation | No | Crisp | No | No | DEMATEL | India | 7 | – |
| Liu et al. (2021) | Treatment technology evaluation | Yes | Pythagorean fuzzy | Yes | Yes | SIM, CoCoSo | India | 15 | 5 |
| Makan and Fadili (2021) | Treatment technology evaluation | No | Crisp | No | No | SRW, PROMETHEE | IE | 16 | 10 |
| Thakur et al. (2021) | Key factor evaluation | Yes | Fuzzy | No | No | Delphi, DEMATEL, AHP | India | 20 | – |
| Our study | Disinfection facility location sel. under COVID-19 | Yes | Fermatean fuzzy | Yes | Yes | RF-RFE, ITARA, MARCOS | Turkey | 30 | 5 |
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process, ANP Analytic Network Process, CoCoSo Combined Compromise Solution, CA Comparative Analysis, COPRAS COmplex PRoportional Assessment, COVID-19COronaVIirus Disease-2019, CRE CRoss-Entropy, DEMATEL DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory, DVM DiVergence Measure, EDAS Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution, GDM Group Decision-Making, IE Illustrative Example, ITARA Indifference Threshold-based Attribute Ratio Analysis, ISM Interpretive Structural Modeling, IVF Interval-Valued Fuzzy, IVIF Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy, LP Linear Programming, MARCOS Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution, PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluations, RF-RFE Random Forest Recursive Feature Elimination, SA Sensitivity Analysis, SIM SImilarity Measure, SRW SuRrogate Weights, TOPSIS Technique for the Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution