Online health communities (OHCs) have emerged as a significant platform for people communicating health information and self-healthcare management. In recent, the researches focusing on its performance measurement and the service quality evaluation have drawn intensive attention. Although some qualitative methods have made evaluation and analyses for the OHCs performance, the studies based on fuzzy multi-attribute decision making theory are rarely developed in the service quality evaluation of OHCs. In view of the complexity and uncertainty of evaluation mission, this paper develops an integrated evaluation approach of the OHC service quality based on the q-rung orthopair fuzzy linguistic aggregation operators. Firstly, we propose the cross-entropy of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers, which is applied in solving the optimal weight of indicators by a linear programming model. Next, the q-rung orthopair fuzzy linguistic power average (q-ROFLPA) and q-rung orthopair fuzzy linguistic partitioned dual Maclaurin symmetric mean (q-ROFLPDMSM) operators are developed for aggregating the assessment information and ranking the OHCs. Based on the proposed aggregation operators, the evaluation indicator system and an evaluation framework are constructed to accomplish the service quality evaluation of OHCs. Finally, a practical evaluation case of OHCs is provided to demonstrate the reliability and advantages of the proposed approach.
ZhouJ. and FanT., Understanding the factors influencing patiente-health literacy in online health communities (ohcs): A socialcognitive theory perspective, International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health16(14) (2019), 2455.
2.
ZhangX., LiuS., ChenX., WangL., GaoB. and ZhuQ., Healthinformation privacy concerns, antecedents, and informationdisclosure intention in online health communities, Information& Management55(4) (2018), 482–493.
3.
KuangJ., KuangL., YanZ., The impact of penetration rate of online health service on service quality and price: Evidence from online health communities. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Crowd Science and Engineering, (2018), pp. 1–5.
4.
JungY., HurC., JungD. and KimM., Identifying key hospitalservice quality factors in online health communities, Journalof Medical Internet Research17(4) (2015), e90.
5.
WuH. and LuN., Service provision, pricing, and patientsatisfaction in online health communities, International Journal of Medical Informatics110 (2018), 77–89.
6.
RongY., LiuY., PeiZ., A novel multiple attribute decision-making approach for evaluation of emergency management schemes under picture fuzzy environment, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, (2021), pp. 1–29.
7.
ChangT-H., Fuzzy vikor method: A case study of the hospital serviceevaluation in taiwan, Information Sciences271 (2014), 196–212.
8.
FeiL., LuJ. and FengY., An extended bestworst multi-criteriadecision-making method by belief functions and its applications inhospital service evaluation, Computers & IndustrialEngineering142 (2020), 106355.
9.
JiangS., ShiH., LinW. and LiuH-C., A large group linguisticz-dematel approach for identifying key performance indicators inhospital performance management, Applied Soft Computing86 (2020), 105900.
10.
SunR., HuJ., ZhouJ. and ChenX., A hesitant fuzzy linguisticprojection-based mabac method for patients’ prioritization, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems20(7) (2018), 2144–2160.
11.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information & Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
Ronald YagerR., Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteriadecision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems22(4) (2013), 958–965.
14.
Ronald YagerR., Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets, IEEETransactions on Fuzzy Systems25(5) (2016), 1222–1230.
15.
Lotfi ZadehA., The concept of a linguistic variable and itsapplication to approximate reasoning—ii, InformationSciences8(4) (1975), 301–357.
16.
WangH., JuY. and LiuP., Multi-attribute group decision-makingmethods based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy linguistic sets, International Journal of Intelligent Systems34(6) (2019), 1129–1157.
17.
ZhangH., DongY., XiaoJ., ChiclanaF. and Herrera-ViedmaPersonalizedE., individual semantics-based approach for linguisticfailure modes and effects analysis with incomplete preferenceinformation, IISE Transactions52(11) (2020), 1275–1296.
18.
ZhangH., LiC-C., LiuY., DongY., Modelling personalized individual semantics and consensus in comparative linguistic expression preference relations with self-confidence: An optimization-based approach, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems2019.
19.
RongY., LiuY. and PeiZ., Complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuplelinguistic maclaurin symmetric mean operators and its application toemergency program selection, International Journal ofIntelligent Systems35(11) (2020), 1749–1790.
20.
LiL., ZhangR. and X403388407179798 Shang.Some q-rung orthopairlinguistic heronian mean operators with their application tomulti-attribute group decision making, Archives of ControlSciences28, 2018.
21.
TzengG-H., ChenT-Y. and WangJ-C., A weight-assessing method withhabitual domains, European Journal of Operational Research110(2) (1998), 342–367.
22.
DiakoulakiD., MavrotasG. and PapayannakisL., Determiningobjective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method, Computers & Operations Research22(7) (1995), 763–770.
23.
ShoreJ. and JohnsonR., Axiomatic derivation of the principle ofmaximum entropy and the principle of minimum cross-entropy, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory26(1) (1980), 26–37.
24.
YucesanM. and GulM., Hospital service quality evaluation: anintegrated model based on pythagorean fuzzy ahp and fuzzy topsis, Soft Computing24(5) (2020), 3237–3255.
25.
AmiriM., Hashemi-TabatabaeiM., GhahremanlooM., Keshavarz-GhorabaeeM., Kazimieras ZavadskasE. and AntuchevicieneJ., A new fuzzy approach based on bwm and fuzzy preference programmingfor hospital performance evaluation: A case study, Applied Soft Computing92 (2020), 106279.
26.
XingY., ZhangR., ZhouZ. and WangJ., Some q-rung orthopair fuzzypoint weighted aggregation operators for multi-attribute decisionmaking, Soft Computing23(22) (2019), 11627–11649.
27.
GouX., XuZ. and LiaoH., Multiple criteria decision making basedon bonferroni means with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Soft Computing21(21) (2017), 6515–6529.
28.
SinaniF., ErcegZ. and Vasiljevi’cM., An evaluation of athird-party logistics provider: The application of the roughdombi-hamy mean operator, Decision Making: Applications inManagement and Engineering3(1) (2020), 92–107.
29.
DuY., LiuD., A novel approach for probabilistic linguistic multiple attribute decision making based on dual muirhead mean operators and vikor, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, (2020), pp. 1–19.
30.
BaiK., ZhuX., WangJ. and ZhangR., Some partitioned maclaurinsymmetric mean based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy information fordealing with multi-attribute group decision making, Symmetry10(9) (2018), 383.
31.
LiuP., ChenS-M. and WangY., Multiattribute group decision makingbased on intuitionistic fuzzy partitioned maclaurin symmetric meanoperators, Information Sciences512 (2020), 830–854.
32.
Ronald YagerR., The power average operator, IEEE Transactionson Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans31(6) (2001), 724–731.
33.
LiangD., ZhangY. and CaoW., q-rung orthopair fuzzy choquetintegral aggregation and its application in heterogeneousmulticriteria two-sided matching decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Systems34(12) (2019), 3275–3301.
34.
WeiG. and LuM., Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation operators inmultiple attribute decision making, International Journal ofIntelligent Systems33(1) (2018), 169–186.
35.
MaclaurinC., A second letter to martin folkes, esq.; concerning theroots of equations, with demonstration of other rules of algebra, Philos Trans Roy Soc London Ser A36 (1729), 59–96.
36.
ParasuramanA., Valarie ZeithamlA. and Leonard BerryL., Servqual:A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perc, Journal of Retailing64(1) (1988), 12.
37.
Ufuk BilselR., BüyüközkanG. and RuanD., A fuzzypreference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital websites, International Journal of Intelligent Systems21(11) (2006), 1181–1197.
38.
ChakravartyA., Evaluation of service quality of hospital outpatientdepartment services, Medical Journal Armed Forces India67(3) (2011), 221–224.
39.
Heidary DahooieJ., Salar VanakiA., DaneshmoghadamS., Kazimieras ZavadskasE., A framework to overcome hesitancy of decision-makers in egovernment web site evaluation, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, (2020), pp. 1–21.
40.
Emad Abu-ShanabA. and Ala’a Abu BakerN., Evaluating jordan’se-government website: a case study, Electronic Government, anInternational Journal8(4) (2011), 271–289.
41.
DragulanescuN-G., Website quality evaluations: Criteria and tools, The International Information & Library Review34(3) (2002), 247–254.
42.
Stuart BarnesJ. and Richard VidgenT., Data triangulation and webquality metrics: A case study in e-government, Information &Management43(6) (2006), 767–777.
43.
BurmaogluS. and KazancogluY., E-government website evaluation withhybrid mcdm method in fuzzy environment, International Journalof Applied Decision Sciences5(2) (2012), 163–181.
44.
Ourania MarkakiI., Dimitris CharilasE., AskounisD., Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the quality of e-government web sites. In 2010 Developments in E-systems Engineering (2010), pp. 219–224. IEEE.
45.
Faradila TaharimN., Khairunnisha ZainalN., Xiang LimW., An affective design guideline to optimize higher institution websites. In International Conference on Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research, (2018), pp. 771–780. Springer.
46.
SivajiA., AbdullahA., GiffinA., Usability testing methodology: Effectiveness of heuristic evaluation in e-government website development. In 2011 Fifth Asia Modelling Symposium, (2011), pp. 68–72. IEEE.
47.
AladwaniA.M. and Prashant PalviaA., Developing and validating aninstrument for measuring user-perceived web quality, Information & Management39(6) (2002), 467–476.
48.
KahramanC., Cevik OnarS. and ÖztayşiB., B2cmarketplace prioritization using hesitant fuzzy linguistic ahp, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems20(7) (2018), 2202–2215.
49.
XiaM. and XuZ., Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision makingunder intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Information Fusion13(1) (2012), 31–47.
50.
PengX.D., YangY., et al., Multiple attribute group decision makingmethods based on pythagorean fuzzy linguistic set, Comput EngAppl52(23) (2016), 50–54.
51.
QinJ. and LiuX., Approaches to uncertain linguistic multipleattribute decision making based on dual maclaurin symmetric mean, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems29(1) (2015), 171–186.
52.
MahmoodT., UllahK., KhanQ. and JanN., An approach towarddecision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept ofspherical fuzzy sets, Neural Computing and Applications31(11) (2019), 7041–7053.
53.
PengH-G., WangJ-Q. and ZhangH-Y., Multi-criteria outrankingmethod based on probability distribution with probabilisticlinguistic information, Computers & Industrial Engineering141 (2020), 106318.
