| Literature DB >> 33309436 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on the previous literature it is confirmed that Performance-based service quality and patient satisfaction are major antecedents of behavioral intentions in the healthcare sector. Here, the study deals with the same variables under the framework of Ayurveda healthcare.Entities:
Keywords: Ayurveda; Healthcare; Patient satisfaction; Service quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 33309436 PMCID: PMC8039342 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaim.2020.10.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ayurveda Integr Med ISSN: 0975-9476
Scale measurement properties.
| Construct | Variables | No. of items | Mean ± SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tangibility | 4 | 6.17 ± 0.676 | −0.428 | −0.472 | 0.972 | |
| Reliability | 5 | 6.48 ± 0.646 | −1.221 | 1.53 | 0.989 | |
| Responsiveness | 4 | 6.39 ± 0.653 | −0.769 | 0.049 | 0.987 | |
| Assurance | 4 | 6.64 ± 0.570 | −1.44 | 1.239 | 0.98 | |
| Empathy | 5 | 6.25 ± 0.702 | −0.838 | 0.822 | 0.995 | |
| General satisfaction | 2 | 6.43 ± 0.628 | −0.854 | 0.201 | 0.824 | |
| Technical quality | 4 | 6.27 ± 0.591 | −0.353 | −0.198 | 0.837 | |
| Interpersonal manner | 2 | 6.64 ± 0.585 | −1.263 | 0.99 | 0.881 | |
| Communication | 2 | 6.29 ± 0.639 | −0.539 | 0.045 | 0.927 | |
| Financial aspects | 2 | 5.68 ± 0.779 | −0.423 | −0.16 | 0.943 | |
| Time spent with Doctors | 2 | 6.53 ± 0.629 | −1.04 | −0.084 | 0.937 | |
| Accessibility and Convenience | 4 | 6.58 ± 0.605 | −1.379 | 1.188 | 0.966 | |
| 3 | 6.65 ± 0.585 | −1.598 | 1.553 | 0.955 | ||
Influence of Service Quality and Patient satisfaction across Socio-economic factors.
| Socio-economic Variables | Service Quality | Patient Satisfaction | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | Categories | N | Mean ± SD | t/f | p | Mean ± SD | t/f | p |
| Gender | Male | 200 | 6.44 ± 0.493 | 1.85 | 0.064 | 6.43 ± 0.448 | 2.42 | 0.016 |
| Female | 204 | 6.35 ± 0.525 | 6.32 ± 0.477 | |||||
| Age | 30 and below | 78 | 6.15 ± 0.672 | 10.304 | 0.00 | 6.13 ± 0.630 | 13.598 | 0.00 |
| 31–40 | 67 | 6.34 ± 0.451 | 6.28 ± 0.385 | |||||
| 41–50 | 84 | 6.41 ± 0.479 | 6.42 ± 0.419 | |||||
| 51 and above | 175 | 6.52 ± 0.419 | 6.49 ± 0.373 | |||||
| Marital status | Single | 83 | 6.12 ± 0.671 | 16.528 | 0.00 | 6.09 ± 0.615 | 22.18 | 0.00 |
| Married | 318 | 6.47 ± 0.436 | 6.45 ± 0.387 | |||||
| Separated | 3 | 6.16 ± 0.288 | 6.11 ± 0.190 | |||||
| Annual Income | ≤100000 | 270 | 6.33 ± 0.532 | 4.14 | 0.007 | 6.31 ± 0.482 | 5.29 | 0.001 |
| 100000–300000 | 80 | 6.53 ± 0.465 | 6.49 ± 0.375 | |||||
| 300000–600000 | 51 | 6.50 ± 0.409 | 6.51 ± 0.440 | |||||
| ≥600000 | 3 | 6.66 ± 0.577 | 6.66 ± 0.577 | |||||
| Religion | Christianity | 37 | 6.50 ± 0.564 | 26.29 | 0.00 | 6.30 ± 0.516 | 8.54 | 0.00 |
| Islam | 274 | 6.28 ± 0.484 | 6.32 ± 0.460 | |||||
| Hinduism | 93 | 6.69 ± 0.432 | 6.54 ± 0.421 | |||||
| Occupation | Govt. sector | 19 | 6.77 ± 0.320 | 5.82 | 0.001 | 6.70 ± 0.386 | 5.1 | 0.002 |
| Pvt. Sector | 48 | 6.52 ± 0.569 | 6.49 ± 0.548 | |||||
| Self employed | 136 | 6.31 ± 0.523 | 6.31 ± 0.500 | |||||
| Others | 201 | 6.38 ± 0.484 | 6.36 ± 0.409 | |||||
| Education | Primary or below | 211 | 6.34 ± 0.427 | 2.355 | 0.096 | 6.36 ± 0.403 | 0.487 | 0.615 |
| Secondary | 82 | 6.43 ± 0.558 | 6.35 ± 0.485 | |||||
| Graduation and above | 111 | 6.47 ± 0.608 | 6.41 ± 0.556 | |||||
| Inpatient Days | ≤14 Days | 228 | 6.35 ± 0.519 | −1.992 | 0.047 | 6.33 ± 0.463 | −2.153 | 0.032 |
| >14 Days | 176 | 6.45 ± 0.497 | 6.43 ± 0.463 | |||||
Summary of Multiple regression analysis.
| Independent variables | Standardized Beta coefficient (β) | t- value | coefficient value (p) | f-value | Model fitness (p) | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tangibility | 0.015 | 0.338 | 0.736 | 122.13 | 0.00 | 0.605 |
| Reliability | 0.259 | 4.906 | 0.000 | |||
| Responsiveness | 0.163 | 3.262 | 0.001 | |||
| Assurance | 0.403 | 8.902 | 0.000 | |||
| Empathy | 0.054 | 1.335 | 0.183 |
a. Predictors: Service quality dimensions.
b. Dependent Variable: Patient Satisfaction.
Fig. 1Proposed mediating model.
Model fit indices.
| The Goodness of fit indices | Cut-off value | Result | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-Square (X2) | Expected to be low | 417.149 | Fit |
| Degrees of freedom (DF) | Positive | 110 | Fit |
| Probability level (p) | ≥0.05 | 1.04 | Fit |
| Chi-square mean/DF | ≤5.0 | 3.792 | Fit |
| Goodness of fit (GFI) | ≥0.90 | 0.891 | Marginal |
| Adjusted GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.924 | Fit |
| Tucker Lewis index (TLI) | ≥0.90 | 0.912 | Fit |
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | ≥0.90 | 0.943 | Fit |
| Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) | ≤0.08 | 0.08 | Marginal |
Regression weights for mediating effects.
| Model | Path | Estimate | SE | CR | Sig. (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2 | Service quality on Behavioral intentions | 0.325 | 0.106 | 11.462 | 0.00 |
| Service quality on Patient satisfaction | 0.814 | 0.071 | 3.907 | 0.00 | |
| Patient satisfaction on Behavioral intentions | 0.445 | 0.109 | 5.402 | 0.00 |