Related factors between quality of dental service and Korean net promoter score

Eun-Jae Jung; Yun-Sook Jung; Hae-Young Yang; Ji-Hye Kim; Youn-Hee Choi; Keun-Bae Song

doi:10.11149/jkaoh.2016.40.2.112

Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.40(2) > 1057681

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jung, Jung, Yang, Kim, Choi, and Song: Related factors between quality of dental service and Korean net promoter score

Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2016;40(2):112-117.

Published online: 15 June 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2016.40.2.112

Related factors between quality of dental service and Korean net promoter score

Eun-Jae Jung¹, Yun-Sook Jung^1,², Hae-Young Yang³, Ji-Hye Kim¹, Youn-Hee Choi¹, Keun-Bae Song^1,

¹Department of Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

²Department of Dental Hygiene, College of Science &Technology, Kyungpook National University, Sangju, Korea

³Department of Dental Hygiene, Kyungbuk College, Youngju, Korea

Corresponding Author: Keun-Bae Song Department of Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, 2177 Dalgubeoldaero, Jung-gu, Daegu 41940, Korea Tel: +82-53-660-6870 Fax: +82-53-423-2947 E-mail: kbsong@knu.ac.kr

Received 26 April 2016 Revised 26 May 2016 Accepted 30 May 2016

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

Many people rely on recommendations from family, relatives, and other information sources in order to select the appropriate dental clinic for treatment. The object of this study was to find out the relationship between quality of dental service and Korean Net Promoter Score (KNPS).

Methods

A total of 520 patients were selected through consecutive sampling from four dental clinics in Daegu city. Informed consent of all selected patients was obtained. The patients were required to complete a questionnaire that comprised of three categories of queries related to provision of satisfactory dental service, relation quality, and personal data. Sub-categories of questions included physical and environmental factors, human service factors, patients’ satisfaction with related quality and KNPS. Data was collected by interviewing all individuals on a personal basis over a period of 3 months. Statistical analysis was performed using studental t-test, ANOVA and multiple regression analysis using the SPSS 20.0 software (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Among the various socio-economic factors studied, income was most significantly related to KNPS while satisfaction of relation quality was the largest factor affecting the KNPS. Factors such as satisfactory physical environment, quality of human service, relation quality and income accounted for 52.4% of KNPS. In short, the three major factors that affected KNPS were patient compliance, professionalism of the attending dentist and response of hygienist to patient. Other minor factors influencing KNPS included trust upon the attending dentist, aesthetics of clinicstiinterior, and physical convenience.

Conclusions

It is highly recommended that dental clinics should make strenuous efforts to increase the level of patient compliance, professionalism, and response towards patients, which can be achieved by improving the quality of service and through positive marketing of the hospital.

Keywords: Dental service, Promoter score, Satisfaction of dental service

References

1. Delbert IH, Roger JB. Consumer Behavior. 8th ed. Newyork: McGraw Hill College;2001. p. 504–506.

2. Choi H. A Study on the Effects of Word-of-Mouth's Marketing Factors and Medical-Care Service Purchase. Kor J Hos Manage. 2010; 15:143–164.

3. Andersen RM, Davidson PL. Ethnicity, aging, and oral health outcomes: a conceptual framework. Adv Dent Res. 1997; 11:203–209.

4. Jeong SH, Song KB, Jang HJ, Song KH. Structure relationships for assessment of patients’ satisfaction in university dental hospital. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2000; 24:49–58.

5. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J Retailing. 1991; 67:420–450.

6. Babakus E, Boller GW. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J Bus Res. 1992; 24:253–268.

7. Wakefield KL, Blodgett JG. Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychology and Marketing. 1999; 16:51–68.

8. Reimer A, Kuehn R. The impact of servicescape on quality perception. Eur J Mark. 2005; 39:785–808.

9. Bitner MJ. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. J Mark. 1990; 54:69–82.

10. Cronin Jr JJ, Taylor SA. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. J Mark. 1992; 56:55–68.

11. Singh J, Sirdeshmukh D. Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments. J Acad Market Sci. 2000; 28:150–167.

12. Garbarino E, Johnson MS. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J Mark. 1999; 63:70–87.

13. Anderson E, Weitz B. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. J Mark Res. 1992; 29:18–34.

14. Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. J Mark. 1994; 58:20–38.

15. White-Means SI. Consumer information, insurance, and doctor shopping: The elderly consumer’s perspective. J Consum Aff. 1989; 23:45–64.

16. Ryu JG. A Study on Factors in Selecting Recuperation Hospital of Aging Society J Mark Manage Res. 2006; 11:101–130.

17. Feldman SP, Spencer MC. The effect of personal influence in the selection of consumer services. Bennett Peter D., editorProceedings of the fall conference of the American Marketing Association. American Marketing Association;1965. p. 440–452.

18. Kim KS, Ree SB. Empirical study on Customer Satisfaction and others Factor influencing “Would recommend” in NPS(Net Promoter Score). J Kor society for quality manage. 2009; 37:58–67.

19. Swan JE, Richardson LD, Hutton JD. Do appealing hospital rooms increase patient evaluations of physicians, nurses, and hospital services? Health Care Manage Rev. 2003; 28:254–264.

20. Lee YK. The impact of customers’ perceived prosocial behaviors of customer-contact employees on the evaluation of service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer voluntary performance. J Korean Mark Assoc. 2001; 16:105–125.

21. Kim BD, Han KE. The Effects of Medical Service Quality and Service Value by Relationship Quality on Customer Behaviour. J Dig Conver. 2010; 8:137–150.

22. Son YM, Park CS. A Study on the Relationship Marketing Implement Factors and Repurchase in Hospital. Korean J Business Admin. 2006; 19:379–401.

23. Ryu GC, Park JC. The Role of Situational Factors in the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth Intention: Tie Strength and Solicitation of WOM. J of Consumer Studies. 2004; 15:27–43.

Table 1.

Reliability of physical environmentl, human service, patient satisfaction

Category	Sub-category	Cronbach’s alpha
Physical environmental
Accessibility	Accessibility 1	0.601
	Accessibility 2
Cleanliness	Cleanliness 1	0.867
	Cleanliness 2
	Cleanliness 3
Esthetic	Esthetic 1	0.904
	Esthetic 2
Convenience	Convenience 1	0.735
	Convenience 2
	Convenience 3
Human service
Professional	Convenience 1	0.913
	Convenience 2
	Convenience 3
Dependability	Dependability 1	0.877
	Dependability 2
	Dependability 3
Attention	Attention 1	0.916
	Attention 2
	Attention 3
Patients satisfaction
Satisfaction of treatment	Treatment 1	0.896
	Treatment 2
Satisfaction of management	Management 1	0.827
	Management 2
Loyalty	Loyalty 1	0.847
	Loyalty 2

Table 2.

Promoter score according to socioeconomic status (N=520)

	N(%)	Promoter score (Range 1~7)	P-value*
Gender
Male	242 (46.5)	5.79±1.18	0.448
Female	278 (53.5)	5.72±1.15
Age
≤29	90 (17.3)	5.69±1.02	0.088
30-39	103 (19.8)	5.51±1.20
40-49	116 (22.3)	5.79±1.18
50-59	123 (16.9)	5.94±1.10
≥60	88 (16.9)	5.77±1.28
Education
≤Middle school	44 (16.2)	5.66±1.33	0.766
High school	152 (30.6)	5.86±1.18
College	114 (23.1)	5.72±1.04
University	185 (13.7)	5.71±1.17
Graduate school	25 (8.3)	5.76±1.26
Income (Won)
≤99	84 (16.2)	5.68±1.23^a	0.009
100-199	159 (30.6)	5.70±1.14^a
200-299	120 (23.1)	5.56±1.15^a
300-399	71 (13.7)	5.96±1.03^a
400-499	43 (8.3)	5.77±1.43^a,b
≥500	43 (8.3)	6.28±0.83^b
Visit route
Recommanded of acquaintance	426 (81.9)	5.79±1.16	0.371
Web advertisement	36 (6.9)	5.56±1.16
Other advertisement	13 (2.5)	5.85±1.07
Others	45 (8.7)	5.53±1.18

Values are Mean±S.D. *Statistical significant by T-test or ANOVA (P-value<0.05).

^a ,b,cDifferent characters mean significant difference between groups by Bonferroni corrected.

Table 3.

Promoter score according to physical environmentl, human service, and patient satisfaction (N=520)

Categories	Promoter score (Range 1~7)			P-value*
Categories	Very satisfaction	Usually Satisfaction	Never	P-value*
Satisfaction of facilities
Accessibility	5.98±1.03^b	4.79±1.18^a	4.80±1.23^a	<0.001
Cleanliness	6.09±0.96^c	4.94±1.13^b	3.93±1.00^a	<0.001
Esthetic	6.14±1.00^c	5.42±1.09^b	4.75±1.23^a	<0.001
Convenience	6.13±0.94^c	5.04±1.15^b	4.38±1.20^a	<0.001
Satisfaction of Human service
Professional	6.11±0.89^b	4.29±0.91^a	4.13±1.55^a	<0.001
Dependability	6.05±0.95^b	4.30±0.98^a	3.60±0.55^a	<0.001
Attention	6.07±0.92^c	4.33±0.96^b	3.44±0.88^a	<0.001
Satisfaction of relationship
Satisfaction of treatment	6.01±0.95^b	3.93±0.77^a	3.33±0.58^a	<0.001
Satisfaction of management	6.07±0.92^c	4.26±0.88^b	2.75±0.50^a	<0.001
Loyalty	6.15±0.88^c	4.51±0.93^b	3.44±1.24^a	<0.001

Values are Mean±S.D. *Statistical significant by ANOVA (P-value<0.05).

^a ,b,cDifferent characters mean significant difference between groups by Bonferroni corrected.

Table 4.

Factor affecting promoter score in satisfaction of dental service

	Promoter score
	B	SE	b	t	P-value
Satisfaction of facilities
Accessibility	0.028	0.097	0.011	0.288	0.774
Cleanliness	0.009	0.101	0.004	0.091	0.928
Esthetic	0.193	0.063	0.114	3.065	0.002
Convenience	0.158	0.080	0.079	1.971	0.049
Satisfaction of Human service
Professional	0.480	0.123	0.184	3.911	<0.001
Dependability	―0.085	0.142	―0.030	―0.600	0.549
Attention	0.381	0.122	0.143	3.117	0.002
Satisfaction of relationship
Satisfaction of treatment	0.262	0.156	0.179	1.675	0.095
Satisfaction of management	0.341	0.139	0.118	2.448	0.015
Loyalty	0.661	0.101	0.269	6.523	<0.001
R²>=0.555 F=65.839 (P<0.001)

TOOLS

Similar articles