Cooperative innovation through a talent management pool: A qualitative study on coopetition in healthcare

In recent years, the Dutch healthcare sector has been confronted with increased competition. Not only are financial resources scarce, Dutch hospitals also need to compete with other hospitals in the same geographic area to attract and retain talented employees due to considerable labour shortages. However, four hospitals operating in the same region are cooperating to cope with these shortages by developing a joint Talent Management Pool. ‘Coopetiton’ is a concept used for simultaneous cooperation and competition. In this paper, a case study is performed in order to enhance our understanding of coopetition. Among other things, the findings suggest that perceptions of organizational actors on competition differ and might hinder cooperative innovation with competitors, while perceived shared problems and resource constraints stimulate coopetition. We reflect on the current coopetition literature in light of the research findings, which have implications for future research on this topic.     

Cross‐Sectional Psychological and Demographic Associations of Zika Knowledge and Conspiracy Beliefs Before and After Local Zika Transmission

Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in disease‐specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and self‐efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015–2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved cross‐sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (March–May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (July–August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and self‐efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association.     

BayesProject: Fast computation of a projection direction for multivariate changepoint detection

Statistics and Computing - This article focuses on the challenging problem of efficiently detecting changes in mean within multivariate data sequences. Multivariate changepoints can be detected by...     

Social Antecedents of Medical Fraud and Over-Servicing: What Makes A Doctor Criminal?

Medical fraud and overservicing are estimated to cost the Australian community between $130 and $200 million per annum, a figure far greater than the national cost of burglary and almost the same as the total property loss from all conventional crime. An examination of the social antecedents of medical fraud and overservicing suggests that the predisposition of some doctors to engage in these practices occurs because of the following: (1) medical training and professional socialization that orientate student doctors away from altruistic health issues towards narrower self-interested professional concerns; (2) career expectations of a high pattern of material consumption that are often frustrated by an increasingly competitive medical market place; and (3) professional medical organizations that lobby for national health policies which reflect the mercenary self-interest of doctors rather than the health interest of the nation.