4.1 Article

Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities

Journal

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 64-71

Publisher

INT SOC PROSTHET ORTHOTICS
DOI: 10.1080/03093640208726623

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess consumer/patient satisfaction with the services of the prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) facilities in the north of the Netherlands, using a modified SERVQUAL questionnaire. In this questionnaire, consumer interests and experiences are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire consisted of 30 items covering 5 domains: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy and the consumers were invited to give an overall rating of satisfaction (scale 1-10). Consumers of four P&O facilities were asked to participate. In total 496 consumers (aged 0-76) participated 279 consumers received orthopaedic shoes and 217 consumers received either prostheses or orthoses. An overall satisfaction rating of 8 or higher was given by 75% of the consumers (mean 8.0; sd=1.2). Consumers were defined as satisfied with the services of the P&O facility if they rated their experiences on a certain item equal or better than their rating of its importance. Eighty-five percent (85%) or more of the consumers were satisfied with the P&O facility in 24 of the 30 (80%) items of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. Of the 6 less unsatisfying items, 3 were related to the domain tangibles, 2 were related to the domain empathy and I to the domain responsiveness. The management of the P&O facility can use this information to increase consumer satisfaction by improving quality and service at these items. In general, the degree of consumer overall satisfaction was not related to age, gender, and type of assistive device or length of relationship of consumer and P&O facility. Only consumers who received orthopaedic shoes rated their overall satisfaction significantly lower (0.3) than consumers who received other types of devices. This difference is clinically not relevant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available