| Literature DB >> 35675364 |
Wenyi Lin1,2, Wanxia Yin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explores the effects and influence paths of service quality, brand image, perceived value, and service satisfaction on outpatients' loyalty to China's private dental clinics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35675364 PMCID: PMC9176788 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Theoretical framework.
Patient loyalty scale.
| Brand image | Clinic’s recognition |
| Credibility | |
| Reputation | |
| Perceived quality | Physician medical technology |
| Clinic medical equipment | |
| Patient treatment effect (degree of relief) | |
| Handling complaints | |
| Waiting time for treatment | |
| Waiting time for payment | |
| Attitude of physician work | |
| Attitude of physician service | |
| Explanation of diagnosis and treatment | |
| Choice of treatment plan | |
| Health education | |
| Physician’s clothing | |
| Sanitary conditions | |
| Environmental comfort | |
| Facility sign | |
| Convenience service | |
| Expected quality | Overall impression |
| Expectations of service items before treatment | |
| Expectations of treatment outcomes | |
| Expectations of service effects | |
| Perceived value | Evaluations regarding service fees compared with the quality of services received |
| Service quality compared with service fees paid by patients | |
| Patient satisfaction | Overall satisfaction |
| Satisfaction about services provided compared with expectations | |
| Satisfaction about private clinics compared with other types of dental clinics | |
| Patient loyalty | Willingness to choose private clinics next time |
| Willingness to recommend private clinics to family members or friends |
Sample description (n = 125).
| Mean or percent | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient loyalty | 7.38 | 1.57 | 2 | 10 |
| Patient satisfaction | 11.08 | 2.05 | 3 | 15 |
| Perceived value | 7.14 | 1.43 | 4 | 10 |
| Clinic brand image | 10.98 | 1.99 | 3 | 15 |
| Expected quality | 14.92 | 2.43 | 8 | 20 |
| Perceived quality | 60.01 | 10.00 | 16 | 80 |
| Gender(male) | 35.20% | |||
| Age | ||||
| 25 years old and below | 56.80% | |||
| 26–45 years old | 21.60% | |||
| 46–60 years old | 13.60% | |||
| 61 years old and above | 8.00% | |||
| Education | ||||
| Elementary school and below | 9.60% | |||
| Middle school | 13.60% | |||
| High school or vocational school | 10.40% | |||
| College | 64.80% | |||
| Graduate school | 1.60% | |||
| Income per month | ||||
| 1720 RMB and below | 39.20% | |||
| 1721–4000 RMB | 28.80% | |||
| 4001–6000 RMB | 16.80% | |||
| 6001–8000 RMB | 10.40% | |||
| 8001 RMB and above | 4.80% |
Multiple linear regression model of patient loyalty in the private dental clinics (n = 125).
| B (95% CI | Beta (95% CI | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | -0.445 (-2.103–1.213) | 0.596 | |
| Perceived quality | 0.023 (-0.010–0.056) | 0.148(-0.063–0.360) | 0.168 |
| Expected quality | 0.006 (-0.104–0.116) | 0.009(-0.161–0.180) | 0.914 |
| Clinic brand image | 0.126 (-0.017–0.269) | 0.160(-0.022–0.342) | 0.084 |
| Perceived value | 0.274 (0.130–0.418) | 0.249(0.118–0.380) | <0.001 |
| Patient satisfaction | 0.284 (0.134–0.435) | 0.372(0.175–0.570) | <0.001 |
| Gender | -0.120 (-0.470–0.230) | -0.037(-0.144–0.070) | 0.497 |
| Age | 0.077 (-0.178–0.331) | 0.048(-0.111–0.206) | 0.553 |
| Education | -0.074 (-0.308–0.160) | -0.050(-0.208–0.108) | 0.533 |
| Monthly income | 0.076 (-0.062–0.214) | 0.057(-0.047–0.162) | 0.279 |
*CI- confidence interval.
The path coefficients in SEM (n = 125).
| Variables | Variables | Estimate (Unstandarized) | Estimate (Standardized) | S.E. | C.R. | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected quality | <--- | Brand image | 0.933 | 0.764 | .071 | 13.174 | <0.001 |
| Perceived quality | <--- | Expected quality | 1.675 | 0.408 | .345 | 4.859 | <0.001 |
| Perceived quality | <--- | Brand image | 2.213 | 0.441 | .421 | 5.255 | <0.001 |
| Perceived value | <--- | Brand image | 0.053 | 0.074 | .085 | .625 | .532 |
| Perceived value | <--- | Expected quality | -0.007 | -0.012 | .069 | -.102 | .919 |
| Perceived value | <--- | Perceived quality | 0.084 | 0.589 | .016 | 5.139 | <0.001 |
| Patient satisfaction | <--- | Perceived value | 0.196 | 0.136 | .083 | 2.353 | .019 |
| Patient satisfaction | <--- | Brand image | 0.091 | 0.088 | .079 | 1.156 | .248 |
| Patient satisfaction | <--- | Perceived quality | 0.113 | 0.551 | .017 | 6.774 | <0.001 |
| Patient satisfaction | <--- | Expected quality | 0.160 | 0.189 | .064 | 2.510 | .012 |
| Patient loyalty | <--- | Patient satisfaction | 0.465 | 0.440 | .050 | 9.270 | <0.001 |
| Patient loyalty | <--- | Perceived value | 0.317 | 0.289 | 0.072 | 4.398 | <0.001 |
Model fitness: χ2 ⁄df 4.687(P <0.05); RMSEA: 0.172 (90% CI: 0.089–0.268); CFI: 0.982; TLI: 0.909, SRMR: 0.000.