Developing a Measurement Scale of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments: An Exploratory Study of Customer Perceptions in Taiwan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Basis for Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments
2.2. Effects of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments on Patient Outcomes
3. Study 1
3.1. Sample and Procedure
3.2. Results of the EFA
4. Study 2
4.1. Sample and Procedure
4.2. Measurements
4.2.1. Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments
4.2.2. Customer Loyalty
4.2.3. Customer Willingness to Pay
4.2.4. Control Variables
4.3. Empirical Results
4.3.1. EFA
4.3.2. Common Method Variance Testing
4.3.3. Descriptive Statistics
4.3.4. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical and Managerial Implications
5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measurement Scale of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments
- The rooms are maintained at comfortable temperatures.
- Air quality is good and there are no bad or pungent odors.
- There are no disturbing noises in the surrounding environment.
- The brightness of the lights is toned down to a comfortable level.
- The design of the waiting areas meets the need for privacy.
- The spaces in the hospital are arranged in accordance with the need for privacy (i.e., there are individual check-up spaces with examination beds, screens, and blankets).
- There are individual changing spaces (clean and with adequate covering).
- Lactation rooms are clearly indicated throughout the hospital.
- Lactation rooms are designed to provide adequate covering functions (e.g., chairs with back rests, trash cans with lids, power supplies, doors that can be locked from the inside, and washing facilities) and are equipped with alarms or other kinds of emergency systems.
- Lavatories are equipped with alarms, hooks, and toilets, meeting the requirements for barrier-free environments, and hygiene items are provided.
- There are family-friendly lavatories.
- Facilities and procedures of facility usage are convenient for males and females.
- Gender-friendly signs (e.g., priority seat signs and family-friendly parking space signs) are provided.
- Signs, bulletins, and promotional posters in the hospital can help increase gender-friendly awareness.
- The healthcare center provides vests or blankets that prevent unintended bodily exposure.
- Changing rooms are adequately sized.
- Storage rooms are adequately sized and well designed.
- The service staff are mindful of protecting patients’ privacy.
- Check-ups are conducted in a professional manner, and there is no playful attitude or willful touching or spying on patients’ bodies.
- Patients do not feel uneasy or embarrassed when facing staff members of the opposite sex.
- Staff members possess the knowledge necessary to determine menstrual illness.
- Staff members practice gender sensitivity when interacting with patients and will not cause patients discomfort during a treatment process.
- If bodily exposure is required in tests, service staff members will actively provide adequate coverings or close screens.
- Professional staff members will accompany patients during body check-ups and provide adequate assistance.
- Non-medical staff members (e.g., intern physicians and trainees) can be present during the treatment process only with the patients’ permissions.
- The hospital has a sexual harassment prevention policy.
- Gender differences are taken into consideration in designing the process of body check-ups and treatments (e.g., male and female patients are divided into two check-up lines so they will not be affected by other patients of the opposite sex).
- There is a safety cab hailing service for female patients (e.g., hospitals write down the taxi driver’s administrative and license plate numbers when patients leave).
References
- Huisman, E.R.C.M.; Marales, M.; Hoof, J.V.; Kort, H.S.M. Healing environment: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users. Build. Environ. 2012, 58, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S.; Zimring, C.M.; Zhu, X.; DuBose, J.; Seo, H.; Choi, Y.; Quan, X.; Joseph, A. A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2008, 1, 61–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, C.; Lima, M.L.; Fornara, F.; Bonaiuto, M. Users’ views of hospital environmental quality: Validation of the perceived hospital environment quality indicators (PHEQIs). J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gesler, W.; Bell, M.; Curtis, S.; Hubbard, P.; Francis, S. Therapy by design: Evaluating the UK hospital building program. Health Place 2004, 10, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, R.; Hine, D.W.; Muller-Clemm, W.; Shaw, K.T. Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: Cognitive and physical bases. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2002, 19, 131–147. [Google Scholar]
- Matthews, S.A.; Yang, T.-C. Exploring the role of the built and social neighborhood environment in moderating stress and health. Ann. Behav. Med. 2010, 39, 170–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boudreaux, E.; Mandry, C.; Wook, K. Patient satisfaction data as a quality indicator: A tale of two emergency departments. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2003, 10, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, H.C. A study on women’s perceptions regarding the requirements and satisfaction of a hospital environment. Genom. Med. Biomark. Health Sci. 2011, 3, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ionescu, D. City Hospital Adds Gender-Specific Surgery. 21 January 2011. Available online: http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2011/01/city-hospital-adds-gender-specific-surgery/ (accessed on 14 March 2011).
- Nagasawa, Y. The geography of hospitals. In Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research; Wapner, S., Demick, J., Yamamoto, T., Minani, H., Eds.; Kluwer: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 217–227. [Google Scholar]
- Arneill, B.; Frasca-Beaulieu, F. Healing environments: Architecture and design conducive to health. In Putting Patients First: Designing and Practicing Patient-Centered Care; Frampton, S.B., Gilpin, L., Charmel, P.A., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Schweitzer, M.; Gilpin, L.; Frampton, S. Healing spaces: Elements of environmental design that make an impact on health. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2004, 10, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casparia, S.; Erikssonb, K.; Naden, D. The aesthetic dimension in hospitals-an investigation to strategic plans. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2006, 43, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamilton, D.K. The Four Levels of Evidence-Based Practice. Healthc. Des. 2003, 3, 18–26. Available online: http://www.arch.ttu.edu/courses/2007/fall/5395/392/students/garay/research/research.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2018).
- Watkins, N.; Keller, A. Lost in Translation: Bridging the gaps between design and evidence-based design. Healthc. Environ. Res. Des. J. 2008, 1, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devlin, A.S.; Arneill, A.B. Healthcare environments and patients outcomes. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 665–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornara, F.; Bonaiuto, M.; Bonnes, M. Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighborhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornara, F.; Bonaiuto, M.; Bonnes, M. Perceived hospital environment quality indicators: A study of orthopaedic units. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bean-Mayberry, B.A.; Chang, C.C.H.; McNeil, M.A.; Whittle, J.; Hayes, P.M.; Scholle, S.H. Patient satisfaction in women’s clinics versus traditional primary care clinics in the Veterans Administration. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2003, 18, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doyal, L. Gender and the 10/90 gap in health research. Bull. World Health Organ. 2004, 82, 162. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Beauchemin, K.M.; Hays, P. Dying in the dark: Sunshine, gender and outcomes in myocardial infarction. J. Res. Soc. Med. 1998, 91, 352–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanja-Dijkstra, K.; Pieterse, M.E. The psychological effects of the physical healthcare environment on healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 1, CD006210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Douglas, C.H.; Douglas, M.R. Patient-friendly hospital environments: Exploring the patients’ perspective. Health Expect. 2004, 7, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bitner, M.J. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitner, M.J. The Servicescape. In Handbook of Services Marketing and Management; Swartz, T.A., Iacobucci, D., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Leather, P.; Beale, D.; Santos, A.; Watts, J.; Lee, L. Outcomes of environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 842–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swan, J.E.; Richarson, L.D.; Hutton, J.D. Do appealing hospital rooms increase patient evaluations of physicians, nurses, and hospital services? Health Care Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Sarathy, R.; Xu, H. The role of affect and cognitive on online consumers’ decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decis. Support Syst. 2011, 51, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodworth, R.S. Psychology; Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1929. [Google Scholar]
- Radtke, M.A.; Schafer, I.; Gajur, A.; Langenbruch, A.; Augustin, M. Willingness-to-pay and quality of life in patients with vitiligo. Br. J. Dematol. 2009, 161, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- You, X.; Donthu, N. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 52, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Aiello, A.; Perugini, M.; Bonnes, M.; Ercolani, A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Fornara, F.; Bonnes, M. Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Fornara, F.; Bonnes, M. Perceived residential environment quality in middle- and low-extension Italian cities. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. 2006, 56, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structural modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warmbrod, J.R. Conducting, Interpreting, and Reporting Quantitative Research; Research Pre-Session: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, R. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Homburg, C.; Koschate, N.; Hoyer, W.D. Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiffner, R.; Brunnberg, S.; Hohenleutner, U.; Stolz, W.; Landthaler, M. Willingness to pay and time trade-off: Usefull utility indicators for the assessment of quality of life and patient satisfaction in patients with port wine stains. Br. J. Dermatol. 2002, 146, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 115 | 56.70% |
Female | 88 | 43.30% |
Education | ||
Elementary school or below | 2 | 1.00% |
Junior high school | 2 | 1.00% |
Senior high school | 23 | 11.30% |
Undergraduate | 137 | 67.50% |
Gradate or above | 39 | 19.20% |
Age | ||
19 years old or below | 2 | 2.00% |
20–29 years old | 14 | 6.90% |
30–39 years old | 59 | 29.10% |
40–49 years old | 3 | 1.50% |
50–59 years old | 66 | 32.50% |
60–69 years old | 47 | 23.20% |
70 years old or above | 10 | 4.80% |
Income | ||
Below NT$30,000 | 31 | 15.30% |
NT$30,000–below NT$40,000 | 42 | 20.70% |
NT$40,000–below NT$50,000 | 33 | 16.30% |
NT$50,000–below NT$60,000 | 39 | 19.30% |
NT$60,000 or above | 58 | 28.40% |
Constructs | Items | Factor Loadings | Eigenvalues | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical design (PD) | PD1 | 0.819 | 15.87 | 20.79 | 20.79 | 0.94 |
PD2 | 0.861 | |||||
PD3 | 0.838 | |||||
PD4 | 0.847 | |||||
PD5 | 0.825 | |||||
Functional design (FD) | FD1 | 0.754 | 2.83 | 18.99 | 39.79 | 0.95 |
FD2 | 0.699 | |||||
FD3 | 0.827 | |||||
FD4 | 0.827 | |||||
FD5 | 0.754 | |||||
FD6 | 0.677 | |||||
FD7 | 0.699 | |||||
Marking design (MD) | MD1 | 0.660 | 1.83 | 15.47 | 55.25 | 0.92 |
MD2 | 0.626 | |||||
MD3 | 0.647 | |||||
MD4 | 0.712 | |||||
MD5 | 0.688 | |||||
Gender perception (GP) | GP1 | 0.767 | 1.44 | 12.34 | 67.59 | 0.95 |
GP2 | 0.727 | |||||
GP3 | 0.772 | |||||
GP4 | 0.623 | |||||
GP5 | 0.880 | |||||
GP6 | 0.757 | |||||
GP7 | 0.665 | |||||
GP8 | 0.793 | |||||
Gender-friendly services (GFS) | GFS1 | 0.833 | 1.09 | 11.92 | 79.51 | 0.91 |
GFS2 | 0.788 | |||||
GFS3 | 0.670 | |||||
KMO and Bartlett’s Test | KMO-Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.930 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Sig. = 0.000 |
Variable | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 111 | 44.60% |
Female | 138 | 55.40% |
Education | ||
Elementary school or below | 3 | 1.20% |
Junior high school | 6 | 2.40% |
Senior high school | 30 | 12.00% |
Undergraduate | 167 | 67.10% |
Gradate or above | 43 | 17.30% |
Age | ||
19 years old or below | 5 | 2.00% |
20–29 years old | 20 | 8.00% |
30–39 years old | 67 | 26.90% |
40–49 years old | 83 | 33.30% |
50–59 years old | 60 | 24.10% |
60–69 years old | 12 | 4.80% |
70 years old or above | 2 | 0.80% |
Income | ||
Below NT$30,000 | 43 | 17.20% |
NT$30,000–below NT$40,000 | 52 | 20.90% |
NT$40,000–below NT$50,000 | 40 | 16.10% |
NT$50,000–below NT$60,000 | 47 | 18.90% |
NT$60,000 or above | 67 | 26.90% |
Constructs | Items | Factor Loadings | Eigenvalues | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Customer loyalty (CL) | CL1 | 0.799 | 20.80 | 14.81 | 14.81 | 0.95 |
CL2 | 0.843 | |||||
CL3 | 0.832 | |||||
CL4 | 0.846 | |||||
CL5 | 0.842 | |||||
CL6 | 0.769 | |||||
Customer willingness to pay (WP) | WP1 | 0.861 | 3.73 | 14.67 | 29.48 | 0.83 |
WP2 | 0.859 | |||||
WP3 | 0.608 | |||||
WP4 | 0.577 | |||||
Physical design (PD) | PD1 | 0.656 | 1.84 | 14.34 | 43.82 | 0.93 |
PD2 | 0.673 | |||||
PD3 | 0.667 | |||||
PD4 | 0.719 | |||||
PD5 | 0.726 | |||||
Functional design (FD) | FD1 | 0.697 | 1.52 | 10.33 | 54.15 | 0.95 |
FD2 | 0.758 | |||||
FD3 | 0.783 | |||||
FD4 | 0.642 | |||||
FD5 | 0.639 | |||||
FD6 | 0.653 | |||||
FD7 | 0.666 | |||||
Marking design (MD) | MD1 | 0.630 | 1.45 | 9.74 | 63.89 | 0.94 |
MD2 | 0.719 | |||||
MD3 | 0.778 | |||||
MD4 | 0.719 | |||||
MD5 | 0.723 | |||||
Gender perception (GP) | GP1 | 0.706 | 1.30 | 9.25 | 73.14 | 0.96 |
GP2 | 0.627 | |||||
GP3 | 0.696 | |||||
GP4 | 0.623 | |||||
GP5 | 0.796 | |||||
GP6 | 0.546 | |||||
GP7 | 0.563 | |||||
GP8 | 0.729 | |||||
Gender-friendly services (GFS) | GFS1 | 0.785 | 1.10 | 6.22 | 79.35 | 0.92 |
GFS2 | 0.737 | |||||
GFS3 | 0.696 | |||||
KMO and Bartlett’s Test | KMO-Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.947 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Significant = 0.000 |
Constructs | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Customer loyalty | 4.20 | 0.55 | 0.1 | ||||||
2. Customer willingness to pay | 3.72 | 0.60 | 0.44 ** | 1 | |||||
3. Physical design | 4.43 | 0.46 | 0.32 ** | 0.30 ** | 1 | ||||
4. Functional design | 4.33 | 0.54 | 0.41 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.41 ** | 1 | |||
5. Marking design | 4.25 | 0.53 | 0.44 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.37 ** | 1 | ||
6. Gender perception | 4.44 | 0.49 | 0.35 ** | 0.33** | 0.35 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.35 ** | 1 | |
7. Gender-friendly services | 4.25 | 0.65 | 0.38 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.30 ** | 1 |
Independent Variables | Dependent Variable: Customer Loyalty | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1a | Model 2a | Model 3a | Model 4a | Model 5a | Model 6a | Model 7a | |
Control variables | |||||||
Gender | −0.09 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.03 | 0.04 |
Education | −0.08 | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.07 | −0.09 | −0.06 | −0.07 |
Age | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
Income | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
Independent variables | |||||||
Physical design | 0.53 *** | ||||||
Functional design | 0.50 *** | ||||||
Marking design | 0.49 *** | ||||||
Gender perception | 0.55 *** | ||||||
Gender-friendly services | 0.38 *** | ||||||
Overall gender-friendly hospital environments | 0.58 *** | ||||||
R2 | 0.03 | 0.30 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.33 *** |
ΔR2 | 0.27 *** | 0.23 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.30 *** |
Independent Variables | Dependent Variable: Customer Willingness to Pay | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1b | Model 2b | Model 3b | Model 4b | Model 5b | Model 6b | Model 7b | |
Control variables | |||||||
Gender | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
Education | −0.06 | −0.06 | −0.05 | −0.06 | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.06 |
Age | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
Income | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
Independent variables | |||||||
Physical design | 0.31 *** | ||||||
Functional design | 0.33 *** | ||||||
Marking design | 0.34 *** | ||||||
Gender perception | 0.35 *** | ||||||
Gender-friendly services | 0.27 *** | ||||||
Overall gender-friendly hospital environments | 0.36 *** | ||||||
R2 | 0.02 | 0.11 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.15 *** |
ΔR2 | 0.08 *** | 0.10 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.07 *** | 0.13 *** |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chou, Y.-C.; Dang, V.T.; Yen, H.-Y.; Hsu, P.-S. Developing a Measurement Scale of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments: An Exploratory Study of Customer Perceptions in Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102227
Chou Y-C, Dang VT, Yen H-Y, Hsu P-S. Developing a Measurement Scale of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments: An Exploratory Study of Customer Perceptions in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(10):2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102227
Chicago/Turabian StyleChou, Ying-Chyi, Van Thac Dang, Hsin-Yi Yen, and Pi-Shan Hsu. 2018. "Developing a Measurement Scale of Gender-Friendly Hospital Environments: An Exploratory Study of Customer Perceptions in Taiwan" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 10: 2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102227