نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، مدیریت، دانشکده‌ی امور اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده‌ی امور اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه: یکی از معیار‌های ارزشیابی که در بیمارستان‌ها، مؤسسات درمانی و مطب‌های دندان‌پزشکی در سال‌های اخیر مورد توجه قرار گرفته است، ارزشیابی براساس کیفیت خدمات می‌باشد. هدف از این مطالعه تحلیل و اولویت‌بندی عوامل مؤثر بر کیفیت خدمات دندان‌پزشکی‌ها از دیدگاه مشتریان بوده است. روش بررسی: روش این پژوهش از نوع تحلیلی و مبتنی بر ابزار‌های تلفیقی Kano و فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی می‌باشد. جامعه‌ی آماری این پژوهش کلیه‌ی مشتریان دندان‌پزشکی‌های شهر اصفهان در سال 1391 بودند. بدین منظور تعداد 490 نفر از مشتریان به‌صورت تصادفی- طبقه‌ای انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها شامل پرسش‌نامه‌ی کانو و فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی بود. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها مبتنی بر روش‌های فازی و با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS و Excel انجام شده است. یافته‌ها: تجزیه تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از مدل کانو نشان می‌دهد که معیار‌های صلاحیت حرفه‌ای، روش و رفتار دندان‌پزشک، کنترل و رفع درد جزو معیار‌های الزامی و معیار‌های زمان صرف شده برای درمان، محیط و جو، موقعیت سهل‌الوصول، انتظار برای درمان، وقت‌شناسی و حق‌الزحمه برای خدمات جزو معیار‌های تک بعدی و در نهایت معیار‌های شهرت دندان‌پزشک، مسیر و طرح‌بندی کلینیک و تسهیلات پارکینگ جزو معیار‌های جذاب شناسایی شدند. همچنین یافته‌های پژوهش با استفاده از فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی بیان‌گر این است که از دیدگاه مشتریان خدمات دندان‌پزشکی به ترتیب ابعاد الزامی (با مقدار 4641/0)، تک بعدی (با مقدار 3346/0) و جذاب (با مقدار 2013/0) از اهمیت و اولویت بیش‌تری برخوردارند. نتیجه‌گیری: مدیران و مسؤولین مراکز خدمات دندان‌پزشکی، با استفاده از ابزارهای تلفیقی کانو و فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی قادر خواهند بود که عوامل مؤثر بر کیفیت خدمات دندان‌پزشکی را شناخته و به برنامه‌ریزی جهت تقویت و اصلاح ضعف‌ها در این بخش بپردازند. واژه‌های کلیدی: کیفیت مراقبت‌های بهداشتی؛ دندان‌پزشکی؛الگوی کانو؛ فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Quality of Dental Services Using Integrated Tools Kano and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahsa Ghandehari 1
  • Javad Khazaei Pool 2
  • omid Baharestan 2

1 Assistant Professor, Management, Administrative and Economics Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Marketing Management, Administrative and Economics Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction: One of the criteria in the evaluation of hospitals, medical institutions and the practice of dentistry in recent years is evaluation of services quality. This study aimed to analyze and prioritize the factors affecting the quality of dental services from customers perspective. Methods: The Method of the study was descriptive- analytical based on combination of the fuzzy hierarchical analysis process and Kano. The population of the study were patients of dentistry centers in Isfahan in 1391. Thus, 490 patients were selected randomized. Data collection tools was included Kano questionnaire and was Analytical Hierarchy Process. Analysis of data was Based on fuzzy methods using SPSS software and Excel. Results: Data analysis using the Kano model shows that the standards of professional competence, behavior of the dentist and pain control are required criteria and time of the treatment, environment and climate, Easy accessible location, waiting for treatment, punctuality and service fees are one-dimensional criteria and finally dentist's reputation, clinics route and layout and parking facilities are attractive criteria. Also findings indicate that using FAHP dimensions indicate that from the customer perspective of the dental services, respectively required dimension (with amount of 0.4641), one-dimensional (with amount of 0.3346), and attractive (with amount of 0.2013) the priorities are more important. Conclusion: Dental care centers managers, with using a combination of Kano and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process will be able to identify factors that affecting the quality of dental services and have program for strengthen and reform of weaknesses in this section, Keywords: Quality of Health Care; Dentistry; Kano Model; Analytical Hierachy Process

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Quality of Health Care
  • Dentistry
  • Kano Model
  • Analytical Hierachy Process
  1. Pakdil F, Harwood TN. Patient satisfaction in a preoperative assessment clinic: An analysis using SERVQUAL dimensions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2005; 16(1): 15-30.
  2. Moranvillea WC, Bienstock CC. Question order effects in measuring service quality, Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 2003; 20(1): 217–231.
  3. Roberts P. The development of NEDSERV : quantitative instrumentation to measure service quality in nurse education. Nurse Education Today 1999; 19: 396-407.
  4. Hang K, Bradley G. Measuring the performance of IT service: An assessment of SERVQUAL. International journal of accounting information systems 2002; 3(3): 151-164.
  5. Ramanujam P.G. Service Quality in Health Care Organisations: A Study of Corporate Hospitals in Hyderabad. Journal of Health Management 2011; 13(2):177–202.
  6. Yesilada F, Direkt E. Health care service quality: A comparison of public and private hospitals. African Journal of Business Management 2010; 4(6): 962-71.
  7. Lim PC, Tang NKH. A study of patients’ expectations and satisfaction in Singapore hospitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 2000; 13(7): 290-9.
  8. Arasli H, Ekiz EH, Katircioglu ST. Gearing service quality into public and private hospitals in small
  9. Dormohammadi T, Asghari F, Rashidian A. What Do Patients Expect from Their Physicians? Iranian Journal of Public Health 2010; 39(1): 70-7[In Persian].
  10. Kucukarslan SN, Nadkarni A. Evaluating medication-related services in a hospital setting using the disconfirmation of expectations model of satisfaction. Research in Social Administrative Pharmacy 2008; 4(1): 12-22.
  11. Dawn AG, Lee PP. Patient expectations for medical and surgical care: A review of the literature and applications to ophthalmology. Survey of Ophthalmology 2004; 49(5): 513-24.
  12. Saeed, A.A., Mohamed, B.A.,. Patients’ perspective on factors affecting utilization of primary health care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med. J 2002; 23:1237–1242.
  13. Butters JM., Willis, DO. A comparison of patient satisfaction among current and former dental school patients. J. Dent. Educ 2000; 64: 409–415.
  14. Stouthard ME., Hartman, CA., Hoogstraten, J. Development of Dutch version of the dental visit satisfaction scale. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20: 351–353.
  15. Newsome, PR., Wright, GH. A review of patient satisfaction: 2. Dental patient satisfaction: an appraisal of recent literature. Br. Dent. J 1999; 186 : 166–170.
  16. Kress, GC. Patient satisfaction with dental care. Dent. Clin. North Am 1988; 32: 791–802.
  17. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 1988; 64(1): 12-40.
  18. Lin HC, Xirasagar S, Laditka JN. Patient perceptions of service quality in group versus solo practice clinics. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004; 16(6): 437-45.
  19. Lam SS. SERVQUAL: A tool for measuring patient’s opinions of hospital service quality in Hong Kong. Total Quality Management 1997; 8(4): 145-52.
  20. Deng Juin L, YaHsin L, JarYuan P, IngCheau S, Glen R, MingJen C. Chronic kidney-disease screening service quality: questionnaire survey research evidence from Taichung City. BMC Health Services Research 2009; 9(1): 239.
  21. Lim PC, Tang NKH. A study of patients’ expectations and satisfaction in Singapore hospitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 2000; 13(7): 290-9.
  22. Baldwin A, Amrik S. Service quality factors and outcomes in dental care. Managing Service Quality 2003; 13( 3): 207- 216.
  23. Lee KT, Chen CM, Huang ST, Wu YM, Lee H-E, Hsu KJ, Chen HS, Wu JH. Patient satisfaction with the quality of dental treatment provided by interns. Journal of Dental Sciences 2013; 8(2): 177-183.
  24. Hsu TH, Pan FF. Application of Monte Carlo AHP in ranking dental quality attributes, Expert Systems with Applications 2009; 36(2): 2310–2316.
  25. Al-Hussyeen, AJ. Factors affecting utilization of dental health services and satisfaction among adolescent females in Riyadh City. The Saudi Dental Journal 2010; 22(1):19-25.
  26. Shahin A, Zairi M. Kano Model: A Dynamic Approach for Classifying and Prioritizing Requirements of Airlines Travellers - With Three Case Studies on International Airlines. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2009; 20(9): 1003-1028.
  27. Bhattacharyya SK, Rahman Z. Capturing the customer`s voice, the centerpiece of strategy making: A case study in banking. European business review 2004; 16 (2): 128-138.
  28. Shaemi A, Khazaei Pool J, Pormostafa M, Balouei H. The classified Web Qual variable is based on Kano Model for the Evaluation of customer satisfaction of internet banking service quality 2012; 2(2) :123-142
  29. Lee A.H, ChenWC, Chang CJ. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert systems with applications 2008; 34(1): 96-107.
  30. Sohail SM. Service quality in hospitals: more favorable than you might think. Managing service quality 2003; 13(3): 197-206.
  31. Karassavidou E, Glaveli N, Papadopoulos CT. Health care quality in Greek NHS hospitals: No one knows better tha patients. Department of economics, division of business administration, Aristol University of Thessaloniki; 2008.
  32. Baldwin A, Sohal A. Service quality factors and outcomes in dental care. Managing Service Quality 2003; 13(3): 207-216.
  33. Palihawadana D, Barnes BR. The measurement and management of service quality in dental health care. Health Ser Manage Res 2004;17(4):229-36.
  34. Gurdal P, Cankaya H, Onem E. Factors patient satisfaction/dissatisfaction in a dental faculty outpatient clinic in turkey. Com Dent Epidemiol 2000; 28(6): 461-9.
  35. Crossly ML, Blinkhorn A, Cox M. What do our patient really want from us? Brit Dent J 2001; 190: 602-6.