The Relationship Between the Customer Relationship Management and Patients’ Loyalty to Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIM: Customer Relationship Management (CRM) with its various components has been considered as a tool causing customers' loyalty. The present study aims to investigate the relationship between the various components of customer relationship management and patients' loyalty to the place of their treatment. METHODS: This cross sectional and descriptive-analytical study was conducted among nurses and hospitalized patients in inpatient wards in selected hospitals in 2014. Using the stratified random sampling method, 224 valid and reliable researcher-drafted questionnaires were completed for CRM by nurses and 359 questionnaires were completed by patients for patients' loyalty in the studied wards. Data were analyzed using the SPSS(20) software. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant relationship between the level of patients' loyalty and organizational indicators, information technology and knowledge management (P Value>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant relationship between loyalty and the dimensions of the service process (P Value=0.04), human resources (P Value=0.002) and CRM (P Value=0.038). The strength of these relationships were 34, 40 and 36 percent, respectively all of which were positive. CONCLUSION: Customer Relationship Management is a tool for improving influencing factors on patients' satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, attempts to implement customer relationship management as a process for improving hospitals performance and improving communication between service providers in hospitals and customers leading to enhance patients' loyalty should be taken into account by managers and policy makers in the health sectors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".