The shift from disease-centric to patient-centric healthcare: Assessing physicians’ intention to use AI doctors
Vol 9, Issue 4, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 192 (Abstract) 82 (PDF)
Abstract
This study examines physicians’ attitudes toward the intention to use AI doctors in healthcare. Currently, physicians use smart health technologies, health data, and AI in disease-focused research hospitals, and industry regulators hope that AI technology will be extensively used for each person, which means a shift from disease-centric to individual-centric healthcare. Using the theory of technology acceptance and use, a research model was developed to understand physicians’ intentions to use AI doctors for data collection, diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient follow-up. The causal comparison screening technique was used to determine the causes and consequences of physicians’ attitudes, behaviors, ideas, and beliefs. The responses of 478 physicians were evaluated using structural equation modeling and deep learning (an artificial neural network). It was discovered that physicians intend to use AI doctors first for diagnosis and treatment planning, and then for data collection and patient follow-up. According to the findings, the main constructs are performance expectancy, perceived task technology fit, high-tech habits, and hedonic motivation.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Bhattacharya S. Artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and the future of public health. AIMS Public Health. 2022, 9(4): 644-650. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022045
2. van Melle W. MYCIN: A knowledge-based consultation program for infectious disease diagnosis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1978, 10(3): 313-322. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7373(78)80049-2
3. Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthcare Journal. 2019, 6(2): 94-98. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94
4. Uymaz P, Uymaz AO, Akgül Y. Assessing the Behavioral Intention of Individuals to Use an AI Doctor at the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Care Levels. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. Published online July 17, 2023: 1-18. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2233126
5. Arsalan, Owais, Mahmood, et al. Aiding the Diagnosis of Diabetic and Hypertensive Retinopathy Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Semantic Segmentation. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019, 8(9): 1446. doi: 10.3390/jcm8091446
6. Das A, Acharya UR, Panda SS, et al. Deep learning based liver cancer detection using watershed transform and Gaussian mixture model techniques. Cognitive Systems Research. 2019, 54: 165-175. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.12.009
7. Khan MA. An IoT Framework for Heart Disease Prediction Based on MDCNN Classifier. IEEE Access. 2020, 8: 34717-34727. doi: 10.1109/access.2020.2974687
8. Ljubic B, Roychoudhury S, Cao XH, et al. Influence of medical domain knowledge on deep learning for Alzheimer’s disease prediction. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2020, 197: 105765. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105765
9. Spann A, Yasodhara A, Kang J, et al. Applying Machine Learning in Liver Disease and Transplantation: A Comprehensive Review. Hepatology. 2020, 71(3): 1093-1105. doi: 10.1002/hep.31103
10. Woldaregay AZ, Årsand E, Botsis T, et al. Data-Driven Blood Glucose Pattern Classification and Anomalies Detection: Machine-Learning Applications in Type 1 Diabetes. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019, 21(5): e11030. doi: 10.2196/11030
11. Zaar O, Larson A, Polesie S, et al. Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of an Online Artificial Intelligence Application for Skin Disease Diagnosis. Acta Dermato Venereologica. 2020, 100(16): adv00260. doi: 10.2340/00015555-3624
12. World Health Organization. Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550505 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
13. Ishii E, Ebner DK, Kimura S, et al. The advent of medical artificial intelligence: lessons from the Japanese approach. Journal of Intensive Care. 2020, 8(1). doi: 10.1186/s40560-020-00452-5
14. Lin SY, Mahoney MR, Sinsky CA. Ten Ways Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Primary Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2019, 34(8): 1626-1630. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05035-1
15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to understand and duplicate experts’ radiation therapy planning for prostate cancer. Available online: https://www.sbir.gov/node/1308771 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
16. Jheng YC, Kao CL, Yarmishyn AA, et al. The era of artificial intelligence–based individualized telemedicine is coming. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. 2020, 83(11): 981-983. doi: 10.1097/jcma.0000000000000374
17. Statista. Total amount of global healthcare data generated in 2013 and a projection for 2020. Avialable online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1037970/global-healthcare-data-volume/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
18. Yang Z, Silcox C, Sendak M, et al. Advancing primary care with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Healthcare. 2022, 10(1): 100594. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100594
19. Yu C, Helwig EJ. The role of AI technology in prediction, diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2021, 55(1): 323-343. doi: 10.1007/s10462-021-10034-y
20. Statista. Share of urban population worldwide in 2022, by continent. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/270860/urbanization-by-continent/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
21. Chen J, Chen C, B. Walther J, Sundar SS. Do you feel special when an AI doctor remembers you? individuation effects of AI vs. human doctors on user experience. In: Proceedings of CHI '21: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 8–13 May 2021; Yokohama Japan. pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1145/3411763.3451735
22. Ergin E, Karaarslan D, Şahan S, et al. Artificial intelligence and robot nurses: From nurse managers’ perspective: A descriptive cross‐sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2022, 30(8): 3853-3862. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13646
23. Sqalli MT, Al-Thani D. AI-supported health coaching model for patients with chronic diseases. In: Proceedings of the 2019 16th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS); 27–30 August 2019; Oulu, Finland. pp. 452-456. doi: 10.1109/iswcs.2019.8877113
24. Choudhury A, Asan O, Medow JE. Effect of risk, expectancy, and trust on clinicians’ intent to use an artificial intelligence system -- Blood Utilization Calculator. Applied Ergonomics. 2022, 101: 103708. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103708
25. Guo J, Li B. The Application of Medical Artificial Intelligence Technology in Rural Areas of Developing Countries. Health Equity. 2018, 2(1): 174-181. doi: 10.1089/heq.2018.0037
26. Huo W, Yuan X, Li X, et al. Increasing acceptance of medical AI: The role of medical staff participation in AI development. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2023, 175: 105073. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105073
27. Rai A, Keil M, Choi H, et al. Understanding how physician perceptions of job demand and process benefits evolve during CPOE implementation. Health Systems. 2022, 12(1): 98-122. doi: 10.1080/20476965.2022.2113343
28. Juravle G, Boudouraki A, Terziyska M, et al. Trust in artificial intelligence for medical diagnoses. Real-World Applications in Cognitive Neuroscience. Published online 2020: 263-282. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.06.006
29. Yokoi R, Eguchi Y, Fujita T, et al. Artificial Intelligence Is Trusted Less than a Doctor in Medical Treatment Decisions: Influence of Perceived Care and Value Similarity. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2020, 37(10): 981-990. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2020.1861763
30. Armero W, Gray KJ, Fields KG, et al. A survey of pregnant patients’ perspectives on the implementation of artificial intelligence in clinical care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2022, 30(1): 46-53. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac200
31. Fritsch SJ, Blankenheim A, Wahl A, et al. Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients. Digital Health. 2022, 8: 205520762211167. doi: 10.1177/20552076221116772
32. Frank DA, Elbæk CT, Børsting CK, et al. Drivers and social implications of Artificial Intelligence adoption in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2021, 16(11): e0259928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259928
33. Liu CF, Chen ZC, Kuo SC, et al. Does AI explainability affect physicians’ intention to use AI? International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2022, 168: 104884. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104884
34. Baysal AC. Attitude. In: Baysal AC, Tekarslan E (editors). Behavioral Science, 4th ed. Avciol; 2004. pp. 299-342.
35. Hu J, Liang W, Hosam O, et al. 5GSS: A framework for 5G-secure-smart healthcare monitoring. Connection Science. 2021, 34(1): 139-161. doi: 10.1080/09540091.2021.1977243
36. Kueper JK, Terry AL, Zwarenstein M, et al. Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2020, 18(3): 250-258. doi: 10.1370/afm.2518
37. Stone PW, Teutsch S, Chapman RH, Bell C, Goldie SJ, Neumann PJ. Cost-utility analyses of clinical preventive services: published ratios, 1976–1997. American journal of preventive medicine. 2000 Jul 1;19(1):15-23. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00151-3
38. Zhao Y, Li S, Chen H, et al. Application of Smart City Construction in a New Data Environment. Frontiers in Energy Research. 2022, 10. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.908338
39. Srivastava SK. Smart meter for smart homes. In: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Big Data Engineering; 11–13 June 2019; New York, NY, United States. pp. 74-78. doi: 10.1145/3341620.3341621
40. Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, et al. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2016, 91: 44-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007
41. Pasli S, Imamoglu M. Smart watch detected ventricular bigeminy during chest palpitations. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2023, 69: 220.e1-220.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.02.018
42. Mitrasinovic S, Camacho E, Trivedi N, et al. Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses. Technology and Health Care. 2015, 23(4): 381-401. doi: 10.3233/thc-150910
43. Gokalgandhi D, Kamdar L, Shah N, et al. A Review of Smart Technologies Embedded in Shoes. Journal of Medical Systems. 2020, 44(9). doi: 10.1007/s10916-020-01613-7
44. Wang H, Dauwed M, Khan I, et al. MEC-IoT-Healthcare: Analysis and Prospects. Computers, Materials & Continua. 2023, 75(3): 6219-6250. doi: 10.32604/cmc.2022.030958
45. Liu YX, Zhu C, Wu ZX, et al. A bibliometric analysis of the application of artificial intelligence to advance individualized diagnosis and treatment of critical illness. Annals of Translational Medicine. 2022, 10(16): 854-854. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-913
46. Huang K, Jiao Z, Cai Y, et al. Artificial intelligence‐based intelligent surveillance for reducing nurses’ working hours in nurse–patient interaction: A two‐wave study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2022, 30(8): 3817-3826. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13787
47. Ingram K. Constructing AI: Examining how AI is shaped by data, models and people. The International Review of Information Ethics. 2021, 29. doi: 10.29173/irie415
48. Müller S. Is there a civic duty to support medical AI development by sharing electronic health records? BMC Medical Ethics. 2022, 23(1). doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00871-z
49. National Cancer Institute. Diagnosis. Available online: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/diagnosis (accessed on 21 February 2023).
50. Chui K, Alhalabi W, Pang S, et al. Disease Diagnosis in Smart Healthcare: Innovation, Technologies and Applications. Sustainability. 2017, 9(12): 2309. doi: 10.3390/su9122309
51. O’Connell GC, Chantler PD, Barr TL. Stroke-associated pattern of gene expression previously identified by machine-learning is diagnostically robust in an independent patient population. Genomics Data. 2017, 14: 47-52. doi: 10.1016/j.gdata.2017.08.006
52. Yun JH, Lee E, Kim DH. Behavioral and neural evidence on consumer responses to human doctors and medical artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing. 2021, 38(4): 610-625. doi: 10.1002/mar.21445
53. Longoni C, Bonezzi A, Morewedge CK. Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research. 2019, 46(4): 629-650. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz013
54. United Nations. What is Treatment? Available online: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/26june04/event_2004-06-26_general.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2023).
55. Jiang S, Xue Y, Li M, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Treatment Planning of Postmastectomy Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022, 12. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.871871
56. van de Sande D, Sharabiani M, Bluemink H, et al. Artificial intelligence based treatment planning of radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology. 2021, 20: 111-116. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.11.007
57. Wang C, Zhu X, Hong JC, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Present and Future. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. 2019, 18: 153303381987392. doi: 10.1177/1533033819873922
58. Nguyen D, Ngo B, vanSonnenberg E. AI in the Intensive Care Unit: Up-to-Date Review. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2020, 36(10): 1115-1123. doi: 10.1177/0885066620956620
59. Sanchez-Pinsach D, Mulayim MO, Grau-Sanchez J, et al. Design of an AI platform to support home-based self-training music interventions for chronic stroke patients. In: Sabater-Mir J, Torra V, Aguilo I, GonzalezHidalgo M (editors). Artificial Intelligence Research And Development. IOS Press; 2019. pp. 170-175. doi: 10.3233/FAIA190120
60. Statista. Proportion of selected age groups of world population and in regions in 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
61. Holman HR. The Relation of the Chronic Disease Epidemic to the Health Care Crisis. ACR Open Rheumatology. 2020, 2(3): 167-173. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11114
62. Yach D, Leeder SR, Bell J, et al. Global Chronic Diseases. Science. 2005, 307(5708): 317-317. doi: 10.1126/science.1108656
63. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases (accessed on 10 January 2024).
64. Feuerstein JD, Miller S, Ladonne M, et al. S307 Artificial Intelligence Identifies High Risk Patients Lost to Colon Cancer Screening Follow-Up During COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2022, 117(10S): e221-e221. doi: 10.14309/01.ajg.0000857868.62929.a2
65. Niel O, Bastard P. Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology: Core Concepts, Clinical Applications, and Perspectives. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2019, 74(6): 803-810. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.05.020
66. Ribeiro JM, Astudillo P, de Backer O, et al. Artificial Intelligence and Transcatheter Interventions for Structural Heart Disease: A glance at the (near) future. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022, 32(3): 153-159. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2021.02.002
67. Torrente M, Franco F, Calvo V, et al. P08.01 Building Personalized Follow-Up Care Through AI by Bringing the Lung Cancer Patient, Data Scientist and Oncologist Together. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021, 16(10): S991-S992. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.08.294
68. Coco K, Kangasniemi M, Rantanen T. Care Personnel’s Attitudes and Fears Toward Care Robots in Elderly Care: A Comparison of Data from the Care Personnel in Finland and Japan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2018, 50(6): 634-644. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12435
69. Zager Kocjan G, Špes T, Svetina M, et al. Assistive digital technology to promote quality of life and independent living for older adults through improved self-regulation: a scoping review. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2022, 42(16): 2832-2851. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2022.2149423
70. Cruz-Martínez RR, Wentzel J, Sanderman R, et al. Tailoring eHealth design to support the self-care needs of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a vignette survey experiment. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2021, 41(14): 3065-3086. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2021.1971764
71. Mrozovski JM, de Chalain A. L’intelligence artificielle au service du patient de l’officine. Actualités Pharmaceutiques. 2021, 60(611): 28-29. doi: 10.1016/j.actpha.2021.10.008
72. Venkatesh, Thong, Xu. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012, 36(1): 157. doi: 10.2307/41410412
73. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly. 1995, 19(2): 213. doi: 10.2307/249689
74. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Funder DC. Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007, 2(4): 396-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
75. Doliński D. Is Psychology Still a Science of Behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin. 2018, 13(2): e25025. doi: 10.5964/spb.v13i2.25025
76. Sheeran P, Webb TL. The Intention–Behavior Gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2016, 10(9): 503-518. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12265
77. Loebnitz N, Frank P, Otterbring T. Stairway to organic heaven: The impact of social and temporal distance in print ads. Journal of Business Research. 2022, 139: 1044-1057. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.020
78. Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, et al. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2018, 18(8): 500-510. doi: 10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5
79. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989, 13(3): 319. doi: 10.2307/249008
80. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science. 2000, 46(2): 186-204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
81. Jha N, Shankar PR, Al-Betar MA, et al. Undergraduate Medical Students’ and Interns’ Knowledge and Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2022, 13: 927-937. doi: 10.2147/amep.s368519
82. Fishbein MA, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley; 1975.
83. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, et al. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly. 2003, 27(3): 425. doi: 10.2307/30036540
84. Uymaz P, Uymaz AO. Assessing acceptance of augmented reality in nursing education. PLoS ONE. 2022, 17(2): e0263937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263937
85. Zhu Y, Zhao Z, Guo J, et al. Understanding Use Intention of mHealth Applications Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT-2) Model in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023, 20(4): 3139. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043139
86. Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2016, 17(5): 328-376. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00428
87. Laursen MS, Pedersen JS, Just SA, et al. Factors facilitating the acceptance of diagnostic robots in healthcare: A survey. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 10th International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, ICHI 2022. 11–14 June 2022; Rochester, USA. pp. 442-448. doi: 10.1109/ichi54592.2022.00066
88. Christensen L, Johnson R, Turner L. Research Methods, Design, and Analysis. Pearson; 2014.
89. Hair JF, Hult GT, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Sage Publication; 2017.
90. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012, 63(1): 539-569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
91. Sharma, Yetton, Crawford. Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The Method—Method Pair Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research. MIS Quarterly. 2009, 33(3): 473. doi: 10.2307/20650305
92. Garson GD. Partial Least Squares: Regression & Structual Equation Models. Statistical Associates Publishers; 2016.
93. Haykin S. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall; 1999.
94. Chong AYL. A two-staged SEM-neural network approach for understanding and predicting the determinants of m-commerce adoption. Expert Systems with Applications. 2013, 40(4): 1240-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.067
95. Sharma SK, Sharma H, Dwivedi YK. A Hybrid SEM-Neural Network Model for Predicting Determinants of Mobile Payment Services. Information Systems Management. 2019, 36(3): 243-261. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2019.1620504
96. Akgül Y, Uymaz AO. Facebook/Meta usage in higher education: A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis. Education and Information Technologies. 2022, 27(7): 9821-9855. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11012-9
97. Statista. Health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in selected countries in 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
98. Landi H. Nearly half of U.S. doctors say they are anxious about using AI-powered software: Survey. Available online: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/nearly-half-u-s-doctors-say-they-are-anxious-about-using-ai-powered-software-survey (accessed on 10 January 2024).
99. Meyer J, Khademi A, Têtu B, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on pathologists’ decisions: an experiment. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2022, 29(10): 1688-1695. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac103
100. Chandra Y, Shang L, Roy MJ. Understanding Healthcare Social Enterprises: A New Public Governance Perspective. Journal of Social Policy. 2021, 51(4): 834-855. doi: 10.1017/s0047279421000222
101. Rho MJ, Choi IY. The different perception on telemedicine service between public health users and private health users. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA); 24–26 June 2013; Pattaya, Thailand. pp. 1-2. doi: 10.1109/ICISA.2013.6579354
102. Rho MJ, Yoon KH, Kim HS, et al. Users’ perception on telemedicine service: a comparative study of public healthcare and private healthcare. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2014, 74(7): 2483-2497. doi: 10.1007/s11042-014-1966-6
103. Sumaedi S, Yuda Bakti IGM, Rakhmawati T, et al. Indonesian public healthcare service institution’s patient satisfaction barometer (IPHSI-PSB). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2016, 65(1): 25-41. doi: 10.1108/ijppm-07-2014-0112
104. Addo AA, Wang W, Dankyi AB, et al. The Mediating Role of Patient Satisfaction in the Relationship between Quality of Doctor Services and Patient Loyalty: Empirical Evidence from the Health Sector of Ghana. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies. 2020, 05(02): 154-163. doi: 10.36348/sjbms.2020.v05i02.007
105. Berger R, Bulmash B, Drori N, et al. The patient–physician relationship: an account of the physician’s perspective. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 2020, 9(1). doi: 10.1186/s13584-020-00375-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i4.2308
(192 Abstract Views, 82 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Ali Osman Uymaz, Pelin Uymaz, Yakup Akgül
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/