Relationship between Service Quality on Public Health Center and Patient Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between services quality on public health center and patient satisfaction in Kutai Kartanegara Regency, Indonesia.METHOD: This research used pilot pathfinder survey, which was done on February 23rd-25th 2017 in Kutai Kartanegara Regency, Indonesia. Two questionnaires were used in the study. During the data collection, there were 192 patients from the health service center, it was consisted two locations representing the urban and rural area in order to describe the quality of health service towards the patients’ satisfaction. In order to investigate the correlation between the quality of health service and patient satisfaction, Pearson correlation test was conducted.RESULT: The highest score regarding of the service quality was on the dimension of the doctors and pharmacy were 99.5%. The lowest level of patients’ satisfaction on assurance and empathy dimension were 10.4%. There was a significance between the service quality of the doctors, nurses, pharmacy, and the administrators towards the patients’ satisfaction. The highest score of the coefficient correlation on the nurse dimension was 0.273, which means that the nurses were giving good services quality and it affects the people’s satisfaction.CONCLUSION: A good service quality believes would affect the people’s satisfaction which generally affects people’s decision to choose health service provider. Health service center is expected to increase their environmental condition, and the professionalism of the nurses and registration officers in terms of their awareness and performance in order to create better services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".