| Literature DB >> 34948934 |
Jungkun Park1, Hoang Tran Phuoc Mai Le1, Eklou R Amendah2, Dongyoup Kim3.
Abstract
Consumers admiring the beauty standards of other countries are approaching cosmetic surgery medical tourism. This study examines the roles of hospitals and facilitating agents as the main entities of cosmetic surgery medical tourism. 334 Chinese patients who underwent cosmetic surgery in Korea were collected and structural equation modeling is used to analyze the data. The results show that a hospital's service quality in terms of tangibles, assurance, and empathy affect customers' attitudes toward medical tourism for cosmetic surgery, which in turn, influences satisfaction with medical tourism. More importantly, facilitating agents' service quality moderates the effects of hospitals' service quality dimensions on service satisfaction. Findings extend the existing literature on medical tourism by identifying the roles of hospitals and facilitating agents to enhance customers' attitudes and satisfaction with respect to collaborative service provision. Moreover, this research provides the first empirical evidence for the facilitating agents' role in determining satisfaction with medical tourism.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese patient; Korean hospitals; cosmetic surgery; medical facilitators; medical tourism
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948934 PMCID: PMC8702153 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Participants’ socio-demographic characteristics.
| Variable | Group | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 78 (23.4) |
| Female | 245 (73.4) | |
| No response | 11 (3.3) | |
| Total | 334 (100.0) | |
| Age | 17 years or less | 4 (1.2) |
| 18–29 years | 103 (30.8) | |
| 30–39 years | 119 (35.6) | |
| 40–49 years | 71 (21.3) | |
| 50–59 years | 27 (8.1) | |
| 60–69 years | 5 (1.5) | |
| 70 years or more | 0 (0.0) | |
| No response | 5 (1.5) | |
| Total | 334 (100.0) | |
| Annual Income | Less than $25,000 | 43 (12.9) |
| $25,000~$39,999 | 101 (30.2) | |
| $40,000~$54,999 | 97 (29.0) | |
| $55,000~$69,999 | 47 (14.1) | |
| $70,000~$84,999 | 22 (6.6) | |
| $85,000~$99,999 | 11 (3.3) | |
| $100,000 or more | 5 (1.5) | |
| No response | 8 (2.4) | |
| Total | 334 (100.0) | |
| Marital Status | Married | 159 (47.6) |
| Divorced | 33 (9.9) | |
| Widowed | 24 (7.2) | |
| Never married | 113 (33.8) | |
| No response | 5 (1.5) | |
| Total | 334 (100.0) |
Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis for Hospital’s SERVQUAL.
| Factors | Service Quality Attributes | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tangibles | The hospital has up-to-date equipment. | 0.771 | 0.865 |
| The hospital’s physical facilities are visually appealing. | 0.762 | ||
| The hospital has clean and comfortable rooms. | 0.660 | ||
| Materials (including leaflets) associated with the hospital are easily understood. | 0.576 | ||
| Reliability | The hospital provides its services at the time it promises to do so. | 0.545 | 0.860 |
| The hospital staff are dependable. | 0.671 | ||
| The hospital staff’s record-keeping is accurate. | 0.697 | ||
| The hospital is well organized. | 0.645 | ||
| Responsiveness | The hospital staff tell the patients exactly when the services will be performed. | 0.733 | 0.824 |
| Patients receive prompt service from the hospital staff. | 0.753 | ||
| Assurance | Patients feel safe in their interactions with the hospital staff. | 0.613 | 0.895 |
| The hospital staff are knowledgeable. | 0.682 | ||
| Staffs get adequate support from the hospital to perform their jobs well. | 0.709 | ||
| Patients trust the Dr. & the staff. | 0.614 | ||
| The hospital staff thoroughly explain a patient’s condition. | 0.580 | ||
| The behavior of the hospital staff instills confidence in customers. | 0.610 | ||
| Empathy | The hospital has the patients’ best interests at heart. | 0.648 | 0.844 |
| The hospital has operating hours convenient to all patients. | 0.707 | ||
| Patients are waiting for a short time. | 0.821 | ||
| The hospital staff understand your specific needs. | 0.568 |
Note. KMO measure = 0.962; Bartlett’s test: χ2190 = 4412.821, p < 0.001.
Result of CFA.
| Variable | Standardized Loading | AVE | MSV | Composite Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital Tangibles | 0.83 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.87 |
| Hospital Reliability | 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.86 |
| Hospital Responsiveness | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.51 | 0.82 |
| Hospital Assurance | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.89 |
| Hospital Empathy | 0.72 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.84 |
| Attitude toward Service | 0.86 | 0.64 | 0.50 | 0.88 |
| Service Satisfaction | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.50 | 0.88 |
Goodness-of-fit: χ2277 = 400.853, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.92; NFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.98; RFI = 0.92; IFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.037.
Result of SEM.
| Structural Path | β | |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital Tangibles → Attitudes toward Service |
| 2.480 * |
| Hospital Reliability → Attitudes toward Service | −0.130 | −0.837 |
| Hospital Responsiveness → Attitudes toward Service | −0.042 | −0.384 |
| Hospital Assurance → Attitudes toward Service |
| 2.253 * |
| Hospital Empathy → Attitudes toward Service |
| 2.148 * |
| Attitudes toward Service → Satisfaction on Service |
| 15.501 *** |
Note: p * < 0.05, p ** < 0.01, p *** < 0.001. Goodness-of-fit: χ2282 = 429.774, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.91; NFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.98; RFI = 0.92; IFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.040.
Result of multi-group analysis.
| KERRYPNX | High Facilitator’s Service Quality | Low Facilitator’s | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural Path | β | β | Δχ2 | |||
| HT → ATT |
| 3.427 *** |
| 0.117 | 8.758 | 0.003 ** |
| HRL → ATT |
| −1.054 | 0.174 | 0.795 | 1.759 | 0.185 |
| HRS → ATT | −0.061 | −0.396 | −0.056 | −0.377 | 0.014 | 0.906 |
| HA → ATT | 0.087 | 0.420 |
| 2.375 * | 4.454 | 0.035 * |
| HE → ATT |
| 2.683 ** |
| 0.288 | 1.072 | 0.300 |
| ATT → SS |
| 7.084 *** |
| 9.564 *** | 0.256 | 0.613 |
Note: p * < 0.05, p ** < 0.01, p *** < 0.001. Goodness-of-fit: χ2324 = 427.614, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.89; NFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.97; RFI = 0.85; IFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.031. HT: Hospital Tangibles; HA: Hospital Assurance; HE: Hospital Empathy; HRL: Hospital Reliability; HRS: Hospital Responsiveness; ATT: Attitude toward Service; SS: Satisfaction on Service.
Figure 2Results of SEM for high and low facilitators’ service quality (n = 162 and n = 172) respectively). Note: p * < 0.05, p ** < 0.01, p *** < 0.001.
Measurement Items.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Hospital Tangibles | HT 1. The hospital has up-to-date equipment. | Chakravarty (2011); Guiry and Vequist (2011); Guiry et al. (2013); Parasuraman et al. (1988) |
| Hospital Reliability | HRL 1. The hospital provides its services at the time it promises to do so. | |
| Hospital Responsiveness | HRS 1. The hospital staff tell the patients exactly when services will be performed. | |
| Hospital Assurance | HA 1. Patients feel safe in their interactions with the hospital’s staff. | |
| Hospital Empathy | HE 1. The hospital has the patients’ best interests at heart. | |
| Facilitator Tangibles | FT 1. The facilitator has up-to-date equipment and technology. | |
| Facilitator Reliability | FRL 1. When the facilitator promises to do something by a certain time, it will do so. | |
| Facilitator Responsiveness | FRS 1. Staff of the facilitator tell patients exactly when services will be performed. | |
| Facilitator Assurance | FA 1. The behavior of the staff of the facilitator instills confidence in patients. | |
| Facilitator Empathy | FE 1. The facilitator gives patients individual attention. | |
| Attitude toward medical tourism service | ATT 1. My attitude toward medical travel services is positive/negative. | Ellen et al. (2000) |
| Satisfaction on medical tourism service | SAS 1. I was satisfied with the medical travel services provided. | Voss et al. (1998) |