211
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
SERVQUAL
182
(
)
21
Anderson
(p <
0.05)
21
20
(p < 0.05)
SERVQUAL
2007;12:211-9
[1]
[5]
[4]
[6]
PZB
SERVQUAL
[1]
Parasuraman
PZB
1985
[2]
Parasuraman
[2]
[3]
413
Parasuraman
500
2007
1
2
2007
8
21
1988
22
2007
8
3
SERVQUAL
1991
[7]
Parasuraman
212
SERVQUAL
[8]
(tangibles)
(reliability)
SERVQUAL
(responsiveness)
(assurance)
(empathy)
Parasuraman
SERVQUAL
(
SERVQUAL
)
(
21
1-7
)
[9]
[10,11]
O'Connor
1
4
Shewchuk
7
Carney
1-7
SERVQUAL
1
4
[12]
7
Anderson
[14]
(
)
[13]
Anderson
Zwelling
SERVQUAL
(
572
(
)
)
(primary
data)
[1]
Parasuraman
SERVQUAL
182
[7]
SERQUAL
2004
1
2004
(
6
)
Cronbach’s α
DeVellis
0.70
0.60
213
[15]
70%
Cronbach’s α
0.95
0.98
(
)
6.0
(5.9
)
(5.9
)
(5.8
)
5.6
(6.8)
1-7
(6.4)
t
(
-
)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(
)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.0)
60% (
(1.0)
(1.0)
)
(0.9)
(p = 0.007)
55.5
17
85
54.2
(p =
72.5%
0.246)
t
(p <
21
0.05)
52.8%
44.0%
29.7%
p = 0.210
20
(p < 0.05)
85%
16.5%
10.0%
30%
21
20%
60%
(
40%
23.6%
(eastern
ECOG)
cooperative oncology group
30.8%
3
17.42
17.6%
2
(
)
5
16.53
81.8%
61
6
(
)
45%
40
19.66
(
)
(p < 0.05)
1
(8.76)
60%
2
(
)
2
(p < 0.05)
23.37
24.60
(p < 0.05)
16.02
)
214
(N = 182)
(%)
( )
40
41-60 ( )
61
(%)
70 (38.5)
112 (61.5)
46 (25.3)
136 (74.7)
19 (10.4)
93 (52.6)
65 (36.7)
5
52 (28.6)
87 (47.8)
43 (23.6)
68 (38.0)
111 (62.0)
3
96 (52.7)
60 (33.0)
26 (14.3)
(
)
(
6
6
(
)
4 ( 2.2)
178 (97.8)
80 (44.0)
54 (30.0)
48 (26.0)
26 (14.3)
156 (85.7)
)
143 (84.1)
27 (15.9)
12
(
2
2
(
)
132 (72.9)
49 (27.1)
1
)
148 (81.8)
33 (18.2)
1
21 (11.5)
30 (16.5)
20 (11.0)
17 ( 9.3)
9 ( 5.0)
94 (51.6)
4 ( 2.2)
178 (97.8)
96 (53.6)
83 (46.4)
3
79 (43.4)
86 (47.3)
17 ( 9.3)
11 ( 6.2)
33 (18.8)
54 (30.7)
43 (24.4)
35 (19.9)
6
46 (25.3)
136 (74.7)
71 (39.0)
111 (61.0)
96 (53.6)
83 (46.4)
3
111 (61.0)
71 (39.0)
79 (43.4)
86 (47.3)
17 ( 9.3)
ECOG = eastern cooperative oncology group
ECOG
ECOG
ECOG
ECOG
0
1
2
3
41 (22.5)
56 (30.8)
53 (29.1)
32 (17.6)
215
t
Pair t
p
6.4
6.4
6.6
6.1
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.2
6.6
(
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.8
5.6
5.3
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.6
5.8
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.8
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.8
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.210
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.8
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
)
(p > 0.05)
31.3%
20.8%
(6.0
)
(
)
216
(
( )
40
41-60
61
14.45 (12.45)
0.248
16.53 ( 3.89)
< 0.001
(
(
6.27 ( 4.00)
7.54 ( 5.85)
0.120
0.200
4.14 ( 4.82)
0.392
8.76 ( 3.75)
0.021
8.82 ( 4.00)
0.294
Adjusted R = 0.208
p
4.43 ( 3.42)
0.199
8.73 ( 4.33)
0.046
)
)
2
)
0.231
0.008
7.11 ( 5.90)
19.66 ( 7.26)
(
R = 0.313
p
2
2
6
6
2
)
23.37 (
3.13 (
11.44 (
24.60 (
16.02 (
7.54)
8.44)
8.55)
9.09)
7.01)
0.002
0.712
0.184
0.008
0.024
14.31 (
12.13 (
9.53 (
6.27 (
7.91)
7.34)
9.53)
7.99)
0.073
0.101
0.197
0.434
F = 2.97
30
[16]
21
[17]
[16]
19.2%
53.3%
61.0%
39.1%
23.6%
5
t
20
(p < 0.05)
(6.7
)
(6.6
)
217
0.1
(5.7
(6.0
)
)
6.79)
0.3
(6.00
6.05)
Lumby
2
8.73
[18]
[19]
2
2
(
6.62
(
)
2
)
(
Hill
6.63
[19]
0.01
5.53
5.91
)
0.38
2
[20]
(
61
18.1%)
40
(19.7
)
61
40
61
(6.8
)
)
40
(6.5
0.30
5.7
5.6
(
)
0.1
23.37
(p < 0.05)
(p < 0.05)
24.60
16.02 (p < 0.05)
61
61
40
Lumby
SEVQUAL
[18]
29
(p < 0.05)
21
(
83
45.6%)
8.8
20
(p < 0.05)
[21]
(
6.63
6.61
0.02
)
(
)
5.87
0.00
(
)
182
(
6.86
218
11. Brown TJ, Churchill GC, Peter JP. Research note:
improving the measurement of service quality. J
1. Anderson EA, Zwelling LA. Measuring service quality
Retailing 1993;69:127-39.
at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer
Center. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 1996;9:9-22.
12. O'Connor SJ, Shewchuk RM, Carney LW. The great
2. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual
gap. Physicians' perceptions of patient service quality
model of service quality and its implication for future
expectations fall short of reality. J Health Care Mark
1994;14:32-9.
research. J Marketing 1985;49:41-50.
13.
3.
2004;5:1-18
2001
4. De Man S, Gemmel P, Vlerick P, et al. Patients' and
personnel's perceptions of service quality and patient
14. Andersen R, Newman JF. Social and individual
satisfaction in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
determinants of medical care utilization in the United
Imaging 2002;29:1109-17.
States. Milbank Men Fund Q Health Soc1973;51:95124.
5. Uzun O. Patient satisfaction with nursing care at a
university hospital in Turkey. J Nurs Care Qual 2001;
15. DeVellis RF. Scale development. Theory and
Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
16:24-33.
Inc, 1991.
6. White JG, Slabber J, Schreuder A. Patient management:
measuring patients' expectations and perceptions of
16.
2004
service quality in a dental training hospital. SADJ 2001;
17.
56:203-8.
2003;4:86-
7. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: a
105
multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions
18. Lumby J, England K. Patient satisfaction with nursing
of service quality. J Retailing 1988;64:12-37.
care in a colorectal surgical population. Int J Nurs Pract
8. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. Refinement
2000;6:140-5.
and reassessment of the servqual scale. J Retailing
19. Hill CJ, Garner SJ. Factors influencing physician
1991;67:420-50.
choice. Hosp Health Serv Adm 1991;36:491-503.
9.
2003;4:
20.
1997;25:423-30
86-105
10. Cronin JJ, Taylor SA. Measuring service quality: a
reexamination and extension. J Marketing 1992;56:5568.
21.
(
1998:8-12
)
219
Analysis of the Gap Between Expectations
of Service Quality and Satisfaction with
Services Among Inpatients with Cancer
1
2
Nan-Yung Hsu, Wen-Chen Tsai , Pei-Tseng Kung ,
1
3
Wei-Yin Kuo , Chih-Yi Chen, Cheng-Chieh Lin
3
Division of Chest Surgery, Department of Family Medicine, China Medical University Hospital;
1
2
Department of Health Services Management, China Medical University; Department of Healthcare
Administration, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
P u r p o s e . To analyze the factors associated with the gap between inpatient cancer
patients’ expectations of medical service quality and their satisfaction with services
performed.
Methods. We applied the PZB (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry) gap model, and used a
modified SERVQUAL questionnaire to investigate the perception of service quality
among 182 inpatient cancer patients in a medical center. The questionnaire consisted of
five dimentions (21 items) and patients’ characteristics (including predisposing factors,
enabling factors and need factors). The related factors affecting the gap between
expections and satisfaction were examined using a multiple regression model.
R e s u l t s . We found that the expectations of service quality were higher than the
satisfaction in all five dimensions (tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance,
empathy); the differences between expectations and satisfaction were significant (p <
0.05). Furthermore, the differences between expectations of and satisfaction with 20 of
the 21 items were statistically significant (p < 0.05). In addition, according to multiple
regression analysis, sex, age, commercial medical insurance coverage, duration of
disease, and types of cancer significantly affected the differences between expectations
and satisfaction of cancer patients undergoing inpatient treatment (p < 0.05).
C o n c l u s i o n . Gap analysis and assessment by the SERVQUAL scale can be used to
investigate cancer inpatients’ perception of service quality. The results of this study
could be used as a reference for medical staff to improve the quality of medical services.
( Mid Taiwan J Med 2007;12:211-9 )
Key words
gap analysis, inpatient cancer patient, service quality
Received : 2 January 2007.
Revised : 3 August 2007.
Accepted : 21 August 2007.
Address reprint requests to : Pei-Tseng Kung, Graduate Institute of
Healthcare Administration, Asia University, 500 Liou-Feng Road,
Wufeng, Taichung 413, Taiwan.