Does the Payment Method Affect Patient Satisfaction? An Analytical Study in 10 Hospitals in Central Sulawesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indonesia has started reforms in the health system over the past five years, aiming to increase access of all people to health services. At present, there is public concern about quality health services, where the success of hospitals in meeting patient expectations is a major determinant in increasing patient satisfaction and trust. Patient satisfaction is an important measure for the process of evaluating the quality of services to patients in hospitals. However, the evaluation of patient satisfaction based on their payment methods is still very limited. The purpose of this study was to measure differences in hospital service satisfaction based on payment methods in Central Sulawesi. This an analytical observational study with a cross-sectional approach. Samples were taken using purposive sampling technique from 10 hospitals in Center Sulawesi. The samples were 107 respondents for each hospital or 1,070 respondents overall. The highest overall level of patient satisfaction on all elements was experienced by respondents who paid using NHIS (77.50%) while the lowest was felt by respondents who paid with KIS (70.74%). The Kruskal Wallis test results for all elements indicated that there were significant differences in satisfaction levels based on the payment methods in all elements with p-value = 0.000, (p-value <0.05). The results of this study indicated that there were significant differences in satisfaction levels based on the payment methods in all elements of service.
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 | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".