| Literature DB >> 35954572 |
Daniel Nadales Rodríguez1, Guillermo Bermúdez-González1, Ismael Pablo Soler-García1.
Abstract
This study analyzes the influence of the corporate image of nursing homes on the decisions made by family members as to whether their elderly relatives will stay in the same nursing home. An empirical study was conducted considering 566 residents' family members with the capacity to decide whether said residents will remain in the same nursing home, using a binary regression model with a logistic link function (i.e., logit). For the first time in the nursing home sector, these results show the specific variables of the corporate image that influence family members when deciding whether their elders will stay in the same nursing home. In order of importance, these variables are the level of trust conveyed by the nursing home, the investment made in the facilities, price-quality ratio, emotional connection to the nursing home, and the promotion of the nursing home's services. The study also highlights the importance of other personal factors in family members' decisions to keep their elders in the same nursing home, such as the family members' employment situations (higher loyalty among those employed by third parties) and the determining factors involved in the relative's choice of nursing home (higher loyalty among those whose choice was mainly based on humane and dignified treatment). This study offers a discussion of the theoretical contributions this research brings to academia as well as managerial implications for the industry. We believe that one future line of research should be continued after the COVID-19 pandemic comes to an end to compare the results and observe whether the most influential variables on family members' loyalty remain the same as data for this study was collected from November 2019 to February 2020.Entities:
Keywords: consumer behavior; corporate image; family decision-making; loyalty; nursing home
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954572 PMCID: PMC9368088 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Variables of nursing homes’ corporate image.
| Variable | Variable Name | Image Dimension |
|---|---|---|
| IC1 | Services in addition to accommodations | Commercial |
| IC2 | Easy access to the nursing home | |
| IC3 | Quality information and contact with the family | |
| IC4 | Good price-quality ratio | |
| IC5 | Correct advice from management before making decisions | |
| IC6 | Quick problem solving | |
| IC7 | Kindness in staff treatment of residents | |
| IC8 | Effort to provide quality care | |
| IC9 | Transmission of trust | |
| IC10 | Professional qualifications | Strategic |
| IC11 | Promotion of the nursing home services | |
| IC12 | Innovation in treatments and services | |
| IC13 | Investment in facilities and equipment | |
| IC14 | Growth projection | |
| IC15 | Proper management of the nursing home | |
| IC16 | Emotional connection to the nursing home | Emotional |
| IC17 | Transmission of enthusiasm | |
| IC18 | Commitment to improving society | Social |
| IC19 | Social life in the nursing home | |
| IC20 | Commitment to the environment |
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|
| IC1 | 566 | 3682 | 1072 |
| IC2 | 566 | 3171 | 1293 |
| IC3 | 565 | 3950 | 1001 |
| IC4 | 564 | 3559 | 1127 |
| IC5 | 564 | 3601 | 1235 |
| IC6 | 564 | 3605 | 1075 |
| IC7 | 564 | 4048 | 1041 |
| IC8 | 564 | 3927 | 1096 |
| IC9 | 564 | 3956 | 1054 |
| IC10 | 564 | 3839 | 1117 |
| IC11 | 564 | 2679 | 1469 |
| IC12 | 564 | 2970 | 1326 |
| IC13 | 564 | 3074 | 1353 |
| IC14 | 564 | 2723 | 1487 |
| IC15 | 564 | 3353 | 1360 |
| IC16 | 564 | 2924 | 1398 |
| IC17 | 564 | 3087 | 1309 |
| IC18 | 564 | 3129 | 1352 |
| IC19 | 564 | 4234 | 0942 |
| IC20 | 564 | 3092 | 1414 |
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Sample composition.
| Variable | Modality | Freq | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Under 35 | 73 | 12.97 |
| 35–45 | 83 | 14.74 | |
| 46–55 | 178 | 31.62 | |
| 56–65 | 120 | 21.31 | |
| Over 65 | 109 | 19.36 | |
| Relationship | Child | 220 | 38.87 |
| Partner | 40 | 7.07 | |
| Sibling | 84 | 14.84 | |
| Other family member | 222 | 39.22 | |
| Marital Status | Single | 78 | 14.13 |
| Married | 326 | 59.06 | |
| Separated/Divorced | 75 | 13.59 | |
| Widower | 73 | 13.22 | |
| Educational Level | Primary School | 187 | 33.75 |
| Secondary School | 212 | 38.27 | |
| University | 155 | 27.98 | |
| Type of work | Employee | 196 | 35.06 |
| Self-employed | 75 | 13.42 | |
| Unemployed | 52 | 9.3 | |
| Retired | 107 | 19.14 | |
| Student | 32 | 5.72 | |
| Homemaker | 97 | 17.35 | |
| Gender | Man | 234 | 41.94 |
| Woman | 324 | 58.06 |
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Determining factors in the nursing home choice.
| Variable | Modality | Freq | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of nursing home in which the elder is staying | Public | 245 | 43.36 |
| Private | 299 | 52.92 | |
| Charitable | 21 | 3.72 | |
| PRIMARY determining factor in nursing home choice | The price of the nursing home | 84 | 15.03 |
| The elder’s medical care | 178 | 31.84 | |
| Humane and dignified treatment of the elder | 236 | 42.22 | |
| Proximity of the elder to my home | 61 | 10.91 |
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Logit regression results.
| Would Change | Coef | Odds Ratio | Std. Err. | Robust Std. Err. | Robust | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC 4 | −0.181 | 0.834 | 0.110 | 0.099 | * | 0.111 | 0.101 | |
| IC 9 | −0.519 | 0.595 | 0.125 | 0.000 | *** | 0.130 | 0.000 | *** |
| IC 11 | −0.159 | 0.853 | 0.087 | 0.066 | * | 0.093 | 0.087 | * |
| IC13 | −0.234 | 0.792 | 0.094 | 0.013 | ** | 0.098 | 0.017 | ** |
| IC 16 | −0.166 | 0.847 | 0.097 | 0.086 | * | 0.099 | 0.095 | * |
|
| ||||||||
| Partner | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.545 | 0.981 | 0.527 | 0.98 | ||
| Sibling | 0.191 | 1.210 | 0.411 | 0.643 | 0.422 | 0.651 | ||
| Other family member | −0.172 | 0.842 | 0.324 | 0.595 | 0.320 | 0.591 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Private | −1.024 | 0.359 | 0.243 | 0.000 | *** | 0.243 | 0.000 | *** |
|
| 0.047 | 1.048 | 0.580 | 0.936 | 0.542 | 0.932 | ||
| Chose | ||||||||
| No | 0.228 | 1.256 | 0.274 | 0.405 | 0.265 | 0.389 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| The elder’s medical care | −0.723 | 0.485 | 0.376 | 0.055 | * | 0.344 | 0.035 | ** |
| Humane and dignified treatment of the elder | −0.871 | 0.419 | 0.368 | 0.018 | ** | 0.374 | 0.02 | ** |
| Proximity of the elder to my home | −0.663 | 0.515 | 0.465 | 0.153 | 0.426 | 0.12 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Woman | −0.361 | 0.697 | 0.261 | 0.167 | 0.270 | 0.182 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| From 35 to 45 | −0.179 | 0.836 | 0.568 | 0.753 | 0.509 | 0.726 | ||
| From 46 to 55 | −0.411 | 0.663 | 0.576 | 0.475 | 0.482 | 0.393 | ||
| From 56 to 65 | −0.585 | 0.557 | 0.620 | 0.346 | 0.534 | 0.273 | ||
| Over 65 | −0.749 | 0.473 | 0.750 | 0.318 | 0.707 | 0.29 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Married | 0.184 | 1.202 | 0.495 | 0.71 | 0.448 | 0.682 | ||
| Separated/Divorced | 0.827 | 2.285 | 0.567 | 0.145 | 0.527 | 0.117 | ||
| Widower | 0.501 | 1.650 | 0.632 | 0.428 | 0.599 | 0.403 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Secondary School | −0.581 | 0.559 | 0.317 | 0.067 | * | 0.318 | 0.068 | * |
| University | −0.532 | 0.588 | 0.378 | 0.16 | 0.393 | 0.176 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Employed by third party | 1.800 | 6.049 | 0.798 | 0.024 | ** | 0.998 | 0.071 | * |
| Self-employed | 1.826 | 6.206 | 0.873 | 0.037 | ** | 1.056 | 0.084 | * |
| Unemployed | 1.679 | 5.362 | 0.874 | 0.055 | * | 1.048 | 0.109 | |
| Retired | 1.743 | 5.717 | 0.933 | 0.062 | * | 1.114 | 0.118 | |
| Homemaker | 1.356 | 3.880 | 0.878 | 0.122 | 1.071 | 0.206 | ||
| CONS | 4.368 | 78.890 | 1.002 | 0.000 | *** | 1.063 | 0.000 | *** |
Number of observations: 523; Likelihood-Ratio (Chi2 [33df]): 167.25; Prob > Chi2: 0.000; Pseudo R2: 0.2577; Significant at 1% (***), 5% (**), or 10% (*). The results reported are from the ‘logit’ command (Stata). Source: Prepared by the authors.
Classification values.
| Classified | True | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| D | ~D | Total | |
| + | 89 | 31 | 120 |
| − | 74 | 329 | 403 |
| Total | 163 | 360 | 523 |
| Classified + if predicted Pr(D) ≥ 0.5 | |||
| True D defined as WOULD CHANGE! = 0 | |||
| Sensitivity | Pr(+D) | 54.60% | |
| Specificity | Pr(−~D) | 91.39% | |
| Positive predictive value | Pr(D+) | 74.17% | |
| Negative predictive value | Pr(~D−) | 81.64% | |
| False + rate for true ~D | Pr(+~D) | 8.61% | |
| False-rate for true D | Pr(−D) | 45.40% | |
| False + rate for classified + | Pr(~D+) | 25.83% | |
| False-rate for classified− | Pr(D−) | 18.36% | |
| Correctly classified | 79.92% | ||
Source: Prepared by the authors.