MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004212347 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.12.038

Patients’ satisfaction of health service quality in public hospitals: A PubHosQual analysis

2020· article· en· W3004212347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reham Zuhier Qasim Almomani, Ruba Risheed Al-Ghdabi, Khaled Banyhamdan

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient satisfactionService qualityQuality (philosophy)Test (biology)Public healthSample (material)Service (business)Structural equation modelingPsychologyHealth careHealth servicesNursingFamily medicineMedicineBusinessMarketingEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients' satisfaction has become one of the critical issues for governments all over the world and they are prioritizing to keep their citizens happy. The objective of the current study was to determine the impact of health service quality on patient's satisfaction. The study was applied on public hospitals in Jordan. The participants of this research were physician/doctors working in public hospitals in Jordan, a convenience sample with 400 questionnaires handled to the patients, and 354 questionnaires were valid for statistics. The researchers used the AMOS software version 20 to test the hypothesized structural equation model. Health service quality explained %65.7 of the variation of patient satisfaction, which was also, illustrated the extent to which the quality of health service had the potential to make a change in the level of patients' satisfaction in public hospitals. Health service quality had a positive effect on patient satisfaction; therefore, researchers pointed out some recommendations for top management and decision-makers at public hospitals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207