Relationship between the Responsiveness of Service Providers with Patient Satisfaction at Three Conventional Radiography Services in Denpasar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Patient satisfaction, including on radiography services, is an important component of health care provision. Surveys on patient satisfaction have been carried out particularly in government hospitals, but a more detailed study to determine the relationship between patient satisfaction with the responsiveness of service providers has yet to be carried out. This study aims to determine the relationship between the six domains of responsiveness of service providers and outpatient satisfaction at three conventional radiography facilities in Denpasar. Methods: Study was conducted by cross-sectional survey of 158 respondents selected consecutively in three conventional radiography services, namely a government hospital, a private hospital and a private radiology clinic. Data were collected through interviews using modified questionnaires on responsiveness from WHO. Data were analyzed by univariate, bivariate (chi-square test) and multivariate logistic regression method. Results: Univariate analysis indicated that patient satisfaction was 69% but still below the minimum service standards (>80,0%). Multivariate analysis showed that factors associated with satisfaction were the domain of attention (AOR=3.77; 95%CI: 1.62-8.76), the quality of infrastructure (AOR=4.57; 95%CI: 1.61-12.93) and communication (AOR=6.30; 95%CI: 1.75-22.64). Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was generally still below the standard. Domains of responsiveness associated with patient satisfaction were the quality of infrastructure, level of attention and communication skills of service providers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".