| Literature DB >> 34819722 |
Nhi Xuan Nguyen1, Khoa Tran1, Tuyet Anh Nguyen2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent literature on healthcare quality demands more contextualized and patient-perspective research, as models from developed countries are not suitable for developing countries. Moreover, research on private healthcare services in Vietnam has long been underestimated by academia, but it has significant economic and commercial value. Hence, this study explores the dimensions of service quality in private healthcare and how they impact in-patient satisfaction, perceived value, and customer loyalty in Vietnam.Entities:
Keywords: customer perceived value; customer satisfaction; private healthcare; revisit intention; service quality; word-of-mouth
Year: 2021 PMID: 34819722 PMCID: PMC8607125 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S333586
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
Figure 1The conceptual model and research hypotheses.
Demographic Characteristics of the Qualitative Samples
| No | Name | Age | Gender | Salary (VNĐ) | Job | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | Over 35 | Female | 30.000.000 | Business at home | Neurology |
| 2 | B | Over 30 | Female | 15.000.000 | Technician in laps | Lung |
| 3 | C | 24 | Male | 10.000.000–15.000.000 | Journalist | Not reported |
| 4 | D | 23 | Female | 10.000.000 | Staff at Hospital | Gastroenterology |
| 5 | E | 23 | Female | 10.000.000 | Student | General Medicine |
Demographic Characteristics of the Quantitative Samples
| Demographic Characteristics | Sample’s Specifics N=368 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage (%) | ||
| Gender | Male | 188 | 51.1 |
| Female | 180 | 48.9 | |
| Age | 0–25 | 43 | 11.7 |
| 26–35 | 89 | 24.2 | |
| 36–50 | 113 | 30.7 | |
| 51–60 | 123 | 33.4 | |
| Educational Level | High school and below | 88 | 23.9 |
| Vocational training | 78 | 21.2 | |
| Associate | 99 | 26.9 | |
| Bachelor’s and higher | 103 | 28.0 | |
| Income (VND) | 0–10,000,000 | 97 | 26.4 |
| 10,000,001–15,000,000 | 108 | 29.3 | |
| 15,000,001–30,000,000 | 90 | 24.5 | |
| Above 30,000,000 | 73 | 19.8 | |
| Job | Student | 96 | 26.1 |
| Civic officer | 98 | 26.6 | |
| Researcher-Educational activist | 55 | 14.9 | |
| Blue-collar worker | 52 | 14.1 | |
| Artist | 46 | 12.5 | |
| Other | 21 | 5.7 | |
Questionnaire Structure for Inpatients in the Quantitative Phase
| Dimension | Item | Code | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust | This hospital has a good reputation | TRUST1 | Adopt from the qualitative result |
| Staff at the hospital are honest and trustworthy | TRUST2 | ||
| The staff of this hospital cares to solve the inpatients’ problems | TRUST3 | ||
| My health care provider offers me the highest quality in medical care | TRUST4 | ||
| Hospital commitment is to meet in-patient needs and satisfaction | TRUST5 | ||
| Function | Doctors fulfilled my expectation | FUNTI1 | Adopt from the literature |
| Reception personnel fulfilled my expectation | FUNTI2 | ||
| The cleanliness of the hospital fulfilled my expectation | FUNTI3 | ||
| Working time at the hospital fulfilled my expectation | FUNTI4 | ||
| Diagnostic examination at the hospital fulfilled my expectation | FUNTI5 | ||
| Emotion | Using services would make me feel/experience well after leaving | EMOTI1 | Adopt from the literature |
| I believe the hospital strives to do the best for inpatients | EMOTI2 | ||
| I believe the hospital knows what kind of experience inpatients want | EMOTI3 | ||
| Social influence | I found out that other inpatients always leave me a good impression of the hospital’s services | SOFLU1 | Adopt from the qualitative result |
| The presence of other inpatients does not affect the hospital’s ability to provide the best service | SOFLU2 | ||
| The hospital understands that other inpatients influence my comment about their services | SOFLU3 | ||
| Customer perceived value | The hospital provides high-quality services | PERVA1 | Adopt from the qualitative result |
| My effort to get to this hospital was well-deserved | PERVA2 | ||
| Overall, I was satisfied with this hospital fee | PERVA3 | ||
| The hospital offers a reasonable price for its services | PERVA4 | ||
| The hospital’s services are worth the money spent | PERVA5 | ||
| The hospital offered good value for my money | PERVA6 | ||
| Customer satisfaction | I am satisfied with the health care provided | SATIS1 | Adopt from the literature |
| The hospital has met all our expectations | SATIS2 | ||
| Compared with other hospitals, the level of satisfaction was high | SATIS3 | ||
| Choosing this company has proven a wise decision | SATIS4 | ||
| Overall, I am satisfied with this hospital | SATIS5 | ||
| Revisit intention | I consider the organization the first choice among all healthcare service organizations in the area. | REVISI1 | Adopt from the literature |
| We will continue to use the existing products and services and purchase additional product lines offered by this hospital | REVISI2 | ||
| We will keep in touch with employees of the company for future coverage | REVISI3 | ||
| Word of mouth | We will introduce this hospital to others | WOROFM1 | Adopt from the literature |
| I seldom do more than mention the name of this service organization to others | WOROFM2 | ||
| We will tell people more about this company than any other insurance company | WOROFM3 | ||
| We will not miss the opportunity to tell others about this hospital | WOROFM4 | ||
| We will say good things about this hospital | WOROFM5 | ||
| We are proud to tell others about the products and services offered by this company | WOROFM6 |
Notes: *Adapted from: Budrevičiūtė A, Kalėdienė R, Bagdonienė L, Paukštaitienė R, Valius L. Perceptions of social, emotional, and functional values in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their satisfaction with primary health care services. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2019;20:e122.17 © The Author(s) 2019. Creative Commons Attribution licence (). **Reprinted from: Sweeney JC, Soutar GN. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing. 2001;77(2):203–220.20 Copyright 2001, with permission from Elsevier. ***Reprinted from: Ndubisi NO. Mindfulness, reliability, pre-emptive conflict handling, customer orientation and outcomes in Malaysia’s healthcare sector. Journal of Business Research. 2012;65(4):537–546.42 Copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier. ****Adapted from: Nguyen N. Service quality, customer perceived value and repurchase intention in B2B professional service context – the case of general insurance sector in Vietnam [thesis]. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University; 2019. Available from: . Accessed October 8, 2021.43
Figure 2Qualitative results: the in-patients’ cognitive map.
Constructs Reliability and Validity: Cronbach’s Alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR)
| Factor | Cronbach’s Alpha | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust | 0.869 | 0.911 | 0.720 |
| Function | 0.824 | 0.892 | 0.675 |
| Emotion | 0.872 | 0.873 | 0.836 |
| Social influence | 0.847 | 0.850 | 0.655 |
| Customer perceived value | 0.906 | 0.946 | 0.777 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.914 | 0.916 | 0.687 |
| Revisit intention | 0.906 | 0.910 | 0.772 |
| Word of Mouth | 0.957 | 0.955 | 0.780 |
Status of Research Hypotheses After Performing SEM Analysis
| Hypothesis | Latent | Estimate | S.E | P-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust -> CPV | 0.205 | 0.073 | 0.005 | Supported | |
| Function -> CPV | 0.138 | 0.070 | 0.048 | Supported | |
| Emotion -> CPV | 0.087 | 0.048 | 0.069 | Not Supported | |
| Social influence -> CPV | 0.276 | 0.082 | *** | Supported | |
| Trust -> Customer satisfaction | 0.217 | 0.068 | 0.001 | Supported | |
| Function -> Customer satisfaction | 0.048 | 0.064 | 0.450 | Not Supported | |
| Emotion -> Customer satisfaction | 0.118 | 0.044 | 0.008 | Supported | |
| Social influence -> Customer satisfaction | 0.324 | 0.078 | *** | Supported | |
| CPV -> Customer satisfaction | 0.205 | 0.073 | 0.124 | Not Supported | |
| CPV -> Revisit intention | 0.081 | 0.052 | *** | Supported | |
| CPV -> WoM | 0.253 | 0.057 | *** | Supported | |
| Customer satisfaction -> Revisit intention | 0.305 | 0.066 | *** | Supported | |
| Customer satisfaction -> WoM | 0.297 | 0.060 | *** | Supported | |
| WoM -> Revisit intention | 0.247 | 0.061 | *** | Supported |
Note: ***0.000.