| Literature DB >> 30209153 |
Musheer Abdulwahid Aljaberi1, Muhamad Hanafiah Juni1, Rasheed Addulsalam Al-Maqtari2, Munn Sann Lye1, Murad Abdu Saeed3, Sami Abdo Radman Al-Dubai4, Hayati Kadir Shahar1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to investigate the relationships among the perceived quality of healthcare services, satisfaction and behavioural intentions among international students in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Entities:
Keywords: behavioural intentions; international students; quality of health care services; satisfaction; servqual scale
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30209153 PMCID: PMC6144330 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Descriptive results of respondents’ personal and professional characteristics
| Variables | Types | Frequency | Percentage |
| Gender | Male | 383 | 76.6 |
| Female | 117 | 23.4 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Age | 19–29 | 329 | 65.8 |
| 30–39 | 139 | 27.8 | |
| 40–50 | 32 | 6.4 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Nationality | Asia | 306 | 61.2 |
| Africa | 184 | 36.8 | |
| Europe | 8 | 1.6 | |
| North America | 2 | 0.4 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Marital status | Single | 324 | 64.8 |
| Married | 154 | 30.8 | |
| Divorced | 7 | 1.4 | |
| Engaged | 15 | 3 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| University | International Islamic University Malaysia | 325 | 65 |
| University of Malaya | 175 | 35 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Current study level | Bachelor | 166 | 33.2 |
| Master’s | 191 | 38.2 | |
| Doctoral | 143 | 28.6 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Last visit time for hospital/clinic | Less than 1 month | 105 | 21 |
| Between 1 and 2 months | 127 | 25.4 | |
| More than 3 months | 268 | 53.6 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 | |
| Type of hospital/clinic | Public hospital | 258 | 51.6 |
| Private hospital | 77 | 15.4 | |
| Public clinic | 108 | 21.6 | |
| Private clinic | 57 | 11.4 | |
| Total | 500 | 100 |
Descriptive results of the reliability test
| Construct | Item | Measure | Corrected item total correlation | Cronbach’s α if item deleted |
| Tangibility | TAN1 | The hospital/clinic has modern-looking equipment. | 0.795 | 0.856 |
| TAN2 | The physical facilities in the hospital/clinic are visually appealing. | 0.795 | 0.857 | |
| TAN3 | Staffs in the hospital/clinic are well dressed and appear neat. | 0.731 | 0.871 | |
| TAN4 | Materials associated with the service such as pamphlets or statements are visually appealing. | 0.732 | 0.871 | |
| TAN5 | The waiting areas for doctors and medication are pleasant. | 0.642 | 0.891 | |
|
|
| |||
| Reliability | REL1 | When I have a problem, the hospitals/clinic shows a sincere interest in solving it for me. | 0.645 | 0.812 |
| REL2 | When the hospital/clinic staffs promise to do something by a certain time, he/she does so. | 0.663 | 0.806 | |
| REL3 | The personnel performs the service right the first time. | 0.716 | 0.793 | |
| REL4 | The hospital/clinic insists on error-free records. | 0.562 | 0.832 | |
| REL5 | The hospital/clinic provides its services on time. | 0.66 | 0.807 | |
|
|
| |||
| Responsiveness | RES1 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic are always willing to help me. | 0.637 | 0.727 |
| RES2 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic give me prompt service. | 0.635 | 0.729 | |
| RES3 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic are never being too busy to respond to my requests. | 0.603 | 0.733 | |
| RES4 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic are dependable in handling patients. | 0.617 | 0.737 | |
| RES5 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic tell me when services will be executed. | 0.404 | 0.82 | |
| RES6 | Complaints and notes of patients are taken into consideration by the management. | 0.49 | 0.759 | |
|
|
| |||
| Assurance | ASS1 | The behaviour of the personnel in the hospital/clinic instils confidence in me. | 0.542 | 0.59 |
| ASS2 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic are consistently courteous with me. | 0.559 | 0.584 | |
| ASS3 | The personnel in the hospital/clinic have the knowledge to answer my questions. | 0.553 | 0.577 | |
| ASS4 | I feel safe in my dealings with the hospital/clinic. | 0.387 | 0.733 | |
| ASS5 | Hospital employees should get adequate support from their employers to do their jobs well. | 0.356 | 0.648 | |
|
|
| |||
| Empathy | EMP1 | The hospital/clinic has personnel who give me personal attention. | 0.634 | 0.84 |
| EMP2 | The personnel are never too busy to respond to requests. | 0.698 | 0.824 | |
| EMP3 | The personnel of the hospital/clinic understand my specific needs. | 0.749 | 0.81 | |
| EMP4 | The hospital/clinic has my best interests at heart. | 0.72 | 0.818 | |
| EMP5 | The hospital/clinic has operating hours convenient to all its patients. | 0.582 | 0.854 | |
|
|
| |||
| Satisfaction | SAT1 | I am satisfied with the healthcare service I received in this hospital/clinic. | 0.677 | 0.64 |
| SAT2 | My decision to visit this hospital has been a wise one. | 0.667 | 0.65 | |
| SAT3 | The healthcare services I received corresponded to my current needs. | 0.384 | 0.873 | |
| SAT4 | I did the right thing when I decided to avail this hospitals/clinic service. | 0.663 | 0.656 | |
| SAT5 | The overall feelings about the service of care in this hospital are better than what I expected | 0.58 | 0.664 | |
|
|
| |||
| Behavioural intention | BI1 | I will recommend other people to use the healthcare services offered by this hospital/clinic. | 0.695 | 0.691 |
| BI2 | I will consider this hospital/clinic as my first choice if I need medical services in the future. | 0.69 | 0.692 | |
| BI3 | I will tell other people good things about this hospital/clinic. | 0.693 | 0.694 | |
| BI4 | I will use the healthcare services offered by this hospital or clinic more frequently if I need medical services in the future. | 0.43 | 0.809 | |
| BI5 | If I feel sick in the future, I will go to the healthcare services less frequently. | 0.469 | 0.743 | |
| BI6 | I will complain to others if I experience problems with the services offered by private or government hospitals/clinic. | 0.355 | 0.766 | |
|
|
| |||
Descriptive statistics of individual items for each construct
| Construct | Items | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Tangibility | TAN1 | 3.346 | 1.09576 | −0.553 | −0.382 |
| TAN2 | 3.324 | 1.04939 | −0.521 | −0.446 | |
| TAN3 | 3.65 | 1.04771 | −0.795 | 0.205 | |
| TAN4 | 3.27 | 0.96901 | −0.417 | −0.292 | |
| TAN5 | 3.324 | 1.04365 | −0.434 | −0.471 | |
| Reliability | REL1 | 3.19 | 1.11372 | −0.276 | −0.616 |
| REL2 | 3.258 | 1.03032 | −0.367 | −0.269 | |
| REL3 | 3.242 | 0.96192 | −0.392 | −0.14 | |
| REL4 | 3.104 | 0.94391 | −0.238 | −0.058 | |
| REL 5 | 3.232 | 1.23112 | −0.386 | −0.515 | |
| Responsiveness | RES1 | 3.28 | 1.0018 | −0.212 | −0.512 |
| RES2 | 3.166 | 0.98406 | −0.331 | −0.419 | |
| RES3 | 3.036 | 1.06441 | −0.363 | −0.261 | |
| RES4 | 2.562 | 0.95382 | −0.212 | −0.699 | |
| Assurance | ASS1 | 3.25 | 0.94089 | −0.271 | −0.292 |
| ASS2 | 3.26 | 0.94773 | −0.27 | −0.25 | |
| ASS3 | 3.23 | 1.03694 | −0.428 | −0.433 | |
| Empathy | EMP1 | 3.078 | 0.98278 | −0.131 | −0.447 |
| EMP2 | 3.046 | 0.9929 | −0.129 | −0.551 | |
| EMP3 | 3.028 | 1.03989 | −0.239 | −0.624 | |
| EMP4 | 2.978 | 1.01567 | −0.198 | −0.57 | |
| EMP5 | 3.136 | 1.06948 | −0.372 | −0.464 | |
| Satisfaction | SAT1 | 3.11 | 1.05837 | −0.323 | −0.677 |
| SAT2 | 3.176 | 0.99348 | −0.297 | −0.566 | |
| SAT3 | 3.206 | 0.94729 | −0.322 | −0.302 | |
| SAT4 | 3.022 | 1.11355 | −0.096 | −0.803 | |
| Behavioural intention | BI1 | 3.104 | 1.09708 | −0.299 | −0.632 |
| BI2 | 2.996 | 1.09836 | −0.138 | −0.777 | |
| BI3 | 3.154 | 1.06233 | −0.29 | −0.57 |
Structure equation modelling results
| Construct | Measures | Estimate | Size effect | Critical ratio | P values | Factor loading | Squared multiple correlation |
| Tangibility | Item 1 | 1 | 0.8666 | 0.751 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9586 | 0.0383 | 25.0551 | * | 0.8674 | 0.7524 | |
| Item 3 | 0.8566 | 0.0409 | 20.9339 | * | 0.7764 | 0.6027 | |
| Item 4 | 0.7794 | 0.0382 | 20.4072 | * | 0.7637 | 0.5833 | |
| Item 5 | 0.7561 | 0.0432 | 17.4973 | * | 0.8666 | 0.4733 | |
| Reliability | Item 1 | 1 | 0.7473 | 0.5585 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9048 | 0.0554 | 16.3249 | * | 0.7309 | 0.5342 | |
| Item 3 | 0.8875 | 0.0515 | 17.2288 | * | 0.7679 | 0.5897 | |
| Item 4 | 0.7042 | 0.0514 | 13.6943 | * | 0.621 | 0.3856 | |
| Item 5 | 0.9126 | 0.0554 | 16.464 | * | 0.7366 | 0.5426 | |
| Responsiveness | Item 1 | 1 | 0.769 | 0.5914 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9153 | 0.0565 | 16.2118 | * | 0.7165 | 0.5134 | |
| item 3 | 0.9822 | 0.0611 | 16.0683 | * | 0.7109 | 0.5054 | |
| Item 4 | 0.7868 | 0.0507 | 15.5044 | * | 0.6887 | 0.4743 | |
| Assurance | Item 1 | 1 | 0.7353 | 0.5407 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9734 | 0.0631 | 15.4144 | * | 0.7106 | 0.5049 | |
| Item 3 | 0.9925 | 0.0693 | 14.324 | * | 0.6622 | 0.4385 | |
| Empathy | Item 1 | 1 | 0.7151 | 0.5113 | |||
| Item 2 | 1.0864 | 0.0668 | 16.2577 | * | 0.769 | 0.5913 | |
| Item 3 | 1.2058 | 0.0701 | 17.1902 | * | 0.8149 | 0.664 | |
| Item 4 | 1.1279 | 0.0684 | 16.4926 | * | 0.7804 | 0.609 | |
| Item 5 | 0.9787 | 0.0718 | 13.629 | * | 0.6431 | 0.4136 | |
| Satisfaction | Item 1 | 1 | 0.8499 | 0.7223 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9027 | 0.0403 | 22.4012 | * | 0.8173 | 0.668 | |
| Item 3 | 0.8469 | 0.0388 | 21.8329 | * | 0.8041 | 0.6466 | |
| Item 4 | 0.9053 | 0.0478 | 18.9215 | * | 0.7313 | 0.5347 | |
| Behavioural_Intention | 0.9357 | 0.0455 | 20.5701 | * | 0.8796 | 0.7736 | |
| Behavioural intention | Item 1 | 1 | 0.8722 | 0.7608 | |||
| Item 2 | 0.9651 | 0.0405 | 23.839 | * | 0.8408 | 0.707 | |
| Item3 | 0.9369 | 0.0391 | 23.9829 | * | 0.8439 | 0.7122 | |
| Service quality | Tangibility | 1 | 0.7526 | 0.5663 | |||
| Reliability | 1.1059 | 0.0757 | 14.6125 | * | 0.9496 | 0.9017 | |
| Responsiveness | 1.0143 | 0.0684 | 14.8313 | * | 0.9409 | 0.8853 | |
| Assurance | 0.9343 | 0.0644 | 14.5123 | * | 0.965 | 0.9312 | |
| Empathy | 0.8682 | 0.0644 | 13.4853 | * | 0.8828 | 0.7794 | |
| Satisfaction | 1.115 | 0.0718 | 15.5319 | * | 0.8858 | 0.7846 |
*P value is significantly different from 0 at the 0.001 level.
Figure 1The CFA measurement model (exogenous correlation) summarised the incremental fit indices of the exogenous correlation. The model was tested through CFA. The first CFA indicated significant results, as shown in the figure. The CFA enables us to test how well the measured variables represent the constructs. However, each construct or factor contains at least three items. CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.
Figure 2The final full structure model which presents the model developed in this study. However, the developed structural model determines the overall goodness of fit for the causal model and estimates the magnitude and statistical significance for each path coefficient and the variance explained for each endogenous latent construct. Thus, regarding the developed model in the present study, as shown in the figure, it satisfies the criteria of goodness-of-fitness indices, as suggested by earlier researchers. Therefore, the model fits the empirical data well. Moreover, in the same figure, the path coefficient values between the factors are given. The item loadings that explain the relations between the survey item and factor are also identified in figure. The same figure also presents the results onthe goodness-of fit and estimated relationships. In this structural model, all the indices were revealed to satisfy the recommended values, which pointed out that the model fitness was excellent. CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.