Background
Review of relevant literature
Medical tourism
Experience of customers
Methods
Hypotheses development
Prior and current experience
-
Hypothesis 1: Patients’ experience in medical tourism pre-search has a positive effect on their current experience.
-
H1-1: Reputation gained through the prior experience of a hospital has a positive effect on costs related with medical tourism.
-
H1-2: Reputation gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on care quality.
-
H1-3: Reputation gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on supporting system and/or information.
-
H1-4: Searching information gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on costs related with medical tourism.
-
H1-5: Searching information gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on care quality.
-
H1-6: Searching information gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on supporting system and/or information.
-
H1-7: Communication gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on costs related with medical tourism.
-
H1-8: Communication gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on care quality.
-
H1-9: Communication gained through the prior experience has a positive effect on supporting system and/or information.
Current and post experience
-
Hypothesis 2: Patients’ current experience during the medical tour process has a positive effect on post-experience.
-
H2-1: Costs related with medical tourism gained through the patients’ current experience has a positive effect on relationship building.
-
H2-2: Costs related with medical tourism gained through the patients’ current experience has a positive effect on recommendation.
-
H2-3: Costs related with medical tourism gained through the current experience has a positive effect on feedback.
-
H2-4: Care quality gained through the current experience has a positive effect on relationship building.
-
H2-5: Care quality gained through the current experience has a positive effect on recommendation.
-
H2-6: Care quality gained through the current experience has a positive effect on feedback.
-
H2-7: Supporting system and/or information gained through the current experience has a positive effect on relationship building.
-
H2-8: Supporting system and/or information gained through the current experience has a positive effect on recommendation.
-
H2-9: Supporting system and/or information gained through the current experience has a positive effect on feedback.
-
Data collection
Variables | Measurement items | References | |
---|---|---|---|
Prior experience | Reputation (RE) | • RE1: The quality of healthcare in South Korea is well known | Al-Maaitah [51] |
• RE2: Everybody knows that the quality of care here is good | |||
• RE3: South Korea has a good global reputation for healthcare | |||
Searching information (SI) | • SI1: I searched for information on medical tourism through various media | Al-Maaitah [51] Voorhees et al. [10] | |
• SI2: I searched for information on medical tourism through a private medical tourism agency | |||
• SI3: I asked for recommendations from friends and relatives | |||
• SI4: I looked at guide books and/or brochures | |||
• SI5: I acquired information from South Korean hospital representative offices | |||
Communication (CO) | • CO1: The physician had good communication skills | Voorhees et al. [10] | |
• CO2: I received quick responses to the questions I sent via email or posted on social networking platforms | |||
• CO3: I communicated well with the person-in-charge at the travel agency | |||
• CO4: The online material was easy to understand | |||
Current experience | Costs (CT) | • CT1: The price of both domestic and distant healthcare services were reasonable | Al-Maaitah [51] |
• CT2: I received quality medical treatment at a reasonable price | |||
• CT3: This medical treatment was good value for money | |||
• CT4: Overall, the medical tourism costs were quite a reasonable | |||
Care quality (CQ) | • CQ1: The physicians paid enough attention to my concerns in deciding on a medical procedure | Saiprasert [57] | |
• CQ2: The physicians adequately explained my condition, examination results, and medical processes | |||
• CQ3: Setting up the medical procedure appointment was simple and easy | |||
• CQ4: The waiting time for an examination was short at this hospital | |||
• CQ5: Overall, I was satisfied with the medical service | |||
Supporting system and/or information (SU) | • SU1: I received full guidance while being treated in this hospital | Al-Maaitah [51] | |
• SU2: Advanced ICT systems supported medical services in this hospital | |||
• SU3: It was easy to use ICT systems in this hospital | |||
Post-experience | Relationship building (RB) | • RB1: I will continue my relationship with this hospital | Voorhees et al. [10] |
• RB2: Patient reviews influenced the relationship between me and the hospital | |||
• RB3: A standardized process is needed to foster better relationships | |||
• RB4: I will be more likely to maintain my relationship with the hospital if I keep receiving updated medical information from the institution online | |||
Recommendation (RC) | • RC1: I would consider South Korea as my first choice for medical tourism | Al-Maaitah [57] | |
• RC2: I would be willing to continue further medical treatment at this hospital in South Korea | |||
• RC3: I would be willing to recommend this medical treatment in South Korea to my relatives and close friends | |||
Feedback (FB) | • FB1: It is important for the hospital to voluntarily provide feedback for potential customers | Crooks et al. [23] | |
• FB2: It is necessary to write a report on how satisfied the patients were with the treatment | |||
• FB3: Hospitals should respond to the negative perceptions of patients |
Respondents’ characteristics | Frequency | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 62 | 33.0% |
Female | 126 | 67.0% |
Age | ||
More than 18 to more than 65 | 188 | 100.0% |
Nationality | ||
Japan | 101 | 53.7% |
China | 31 | 16.5% |
Russia | 20 | 10.6% |
Mongolia | 17 | 9.0% |
Thailand | 7 | 3.7% |
Malaysia | 5 | 2.7% |
Canada | 3 | 1.6% |
United States | 2 | 1.1% |
Singapore | 1 | .5% |
Vietnam | 1 | .5% |
Number of visits to Korea for medical tourism | ||
First time | 173 | 92.0% |
2 times | 15 | 8.0% |
Influential factor for medical tourism destination | ||
Recommendation | 181 | 96.3% |
Own experience | 7 | 3.7% |
Primary purpose of this visit | ||
Medical service | 152 | 80.9% |
Not medical service: | 89 | 19.1% |
Business/work (10.1%), Vacation (5.9%), | ||
Visit friend and relatives (1.6%), Missing (82.4%) | ||
Type of medical service | ||
Cosmetic/plastic/reconstructive surgery | 57 | 30.3% |
Dental treatment | 49 | 26.1% |
Sight treatment | 25 | 13.3% |
Disease diagnosis | 25 | 13.3% |
Comprehensive medical checkup | 23 | 4.8% |
Follow-up to a previous | 9 | 12.2% |
Sources of information for medical trip | ||
Website of hospital in South Korea | 66 | 35.1% |
Reading the testimonies of other patients | 56 | 29.8% |
Word-of- mouth from friends or relatives | 34 | 18.1% |
Advice of doctor/physician in your country | 22 | 11.7% |
Online medical communities | 10 | 5.3% |
Reasons to choose medical tourism | ||
Medical costs | 101 | 53.7% |
Quality of care service | 46 | 24.5% |
Reputation | 34 | 18.1% |
Waiting | 7 | 3.7% |
Length of stay medical treatment in South Korea | ||
Less than 7 days | 16 | 8.5% |
More than 7 days to less than 15 days | 15 | 8.0% |
More than 15 days to less than 22 days | 133 | 70.4% |
More than 21 days | 24 | 12.8% |
Perception of care costs in South Korea | ||
Reasonable | 133 | 70.7% |
Unreasonable | 55 | 29.3% |
Occupation | ||
Clerical/administrative/secretarial | 115 | 61.2% |
Professional/technical positions | 20 | 10.6% |
Government official/military | 16 | 8.5% |
Executive/managerial positions | 13 | 6.9% |
Self-employed | 13 | 6.9% |
Teacher/instructor/professor | 11 | 5.9% |
Subtotal | 188 | 100.0% |
Variables of the model
Factors | Constructs | Variables | CFA | PCA | Cronbach’s alphas | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized loading | t value | Eigen value | Percent of variance explained | Factor loadings | ||||
Prior experience (PREP) | Reputation | RE1 | .747 | 10.189 | 1.061 | 8.844 | .877 | .833 |
RE2 | .875 | 11.747 | .896 | |||||
RE3 | .770 | – | .826 | |||||
Searching information | SI1 | .762 | 9.239 | 5.107 | 42.557 | .858 | .892 | |
SI2 | .911 | 10.656 | .841 | |||||
SI3 | .899 | 10.554 | .807 | |||||
SI4 | .734 | 8.953 | .744 | |||||
SI5 | .657 | – | .644 | |||||
Communication | CO1 | .515 | 6.765 | 2.341 | 19.509 | .567 | .811 | |
CO2 | .847 | 11.650 | .766 | |||||
CO3 | .820 | 11.021 | .826 | |||||
CO4 | .751 | – | .823 | |||||
Current experience (CUEP) | Costs | CT1 | .902 | 10.588 | 5.495 | 45.794 | .831 | .878 |
CT2 | .773 | 9.373 | .805 | |||||
CT3 | .883 | 10.432 | .850 | |||||
CT4 | .664 | – | .756 | |||||
Care quality | CQ1 | .695 | 9.930 | 1.988 | 16.563 | .854 | .895 | |
CQ2 | .807 | 11.961 | .874 | |||||
CQ3 | .810 | 12.044 | .706 | |||||
CQ4 | .818 | 12.190 | .764 | |||||
CQ5 | .787 | – | .566 | |||||
Supporting system and/or information | SU1 | .685 | 7.233 | 1.136 | 9.468 | .804 | .736 | |
SU2 | .756 | 6.988 | .839 | |||||
SU3 | .653 | – | .780 | |||||
Post-experience (POEP) | Relationship building | RB1 | .838 | 18.872 | 3.823 | 38.233 | .870 | .945 |
RB2 | .892 | 23.037 | .916 | |||||
RB3 | .926 | 26.825 | .936 | |||||
RB4 | .966 | – | .957 | |||||
Recommendation | RC1 | .843 | 7.369 | 1.981 | 20.673 | .883 | .767 | |
RC2 | .798 | 7.336 | .855 | |||||
RC3 | .571 | – | .745 | |||||
Feedback | FB1 | .869 | 11.859 | 2.067 | 19.805 | .878 | .855 | |
FB2 | .818 | 11.224 | .897 | |||||
FB3 | .760 | – | .844 |
Model |
χ
2
| d.f | χ2/d.f | GFI | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | RMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measurement model | 789.920 | 490 | 1.675 | .865 | .933 | .924 | .057 | .047 |
Add a single common latent factor | 784.340 | 489 | 1.604 | .867 | .934 | .925 | .057 | .050 |
Recommended values | > .9 | > .9 | > .9 | < .08 | < .05 |
Variables | RE | SI | CO | CT | CQ | SU | RB | RC | FB | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RE |
.883
| 3.492 | .815 | ||||||||
SI | .149* |
.853
| 3.772 | .804 | |||||||
CO | .135* | .628** |
.802
| 3.900 | .743 | ||||||
CT | .070 | .717** | .628** |
.891
| 3.755 | .810 | |||||
CQ | .181* | .732** | .531** | .687** |
.816
| 3.572 | .823 | ||||
SU | .026 | .178* | .028 | .041 | .098 |
.816
| 4.189 | .723 | |||
RB | .186* | .788** | .599** | .692** | .785** | .039 |
.917
| 3.792 | .986 | ||
RC | .198* | .117 | .014 | .115 | .115 | .469** | .039 |
.843
| 3.952 | .889 | |
FB | .681** | .181* | .036 | .066 | .190** | .098 | .260** | .023 |
.883
| 3.620 | .889 |
CR |
.914
|
.929
|
.857
|
.938
|
.909
|
.856
|
.955
|
.878
|
.913
| ||
AVE |
.780
|
.727
|
.644
|
.793
|
.666
|
.666
|
.840
|
.711
|
.779
|
Results
Path | Path coefficient | S.E. | t value | p value | Hypothesis test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reputation ➙ | Costs | .030 | .065 | .518 | .604 | Not supported H1-1 | H1: Patients’ experience on their current experience |
Reputation ➙ | Care quality | .112 | .080 | 2.176 | .030* | Supported H1-2 | |
Reputation ➙ | Supporting system and/or information | .094 | .110 | .977 | .329 |
Not supported H1-3
| |
Searching information ➙ | Costs | .519 | .107 | 4.849 | .000*** | Supported H1-4 | |
Searching information ➙ | Care quality | .796 | .151 | 7.188 | .000*** | Supported H1-5 | |
Searching information ➙ | Supporting system and/or information | .297 | .147 | 2.035 | .042* | Supported H1-6 | |
Communication ➙ | Costs | .377 | .080 | 3.998 | .000*** | Supported H1-7 | |
Communication ➙ | Care quality | .108 | .089 | 1.418 | .156 | Not supported H1-8 | |
Communication ➙ | Supporting system and/or information | .259 | .124 | 1.794 | .073 | Not supported H1-9 | |
Costs ➙ | Relationship building | .147 | .117 | 2.153 | .031* | Supported H2-1 | H2: Patients’ current experience on post-experience |
Costs ➙ | Recommendation | .423 | .167 | 6.961 | .000*** | Supported H2-2 | |
Costs ➙ | Feedback | .372 | .152 | 3.327 | .000*** | Supported H2-3 | |
Care quality ➙ | Relationship building | .800 | .099 | 10.113 | .000*** | Supported H2-4 | |
Care quality ➙ | Recommendation | .732 | .108 | 6.750 | .000*** | Supported H2-5 | |
Care quality ➙ | Feedback | .545 | .114 | 4.727 | .000*** | Supported H2-6 | |
Supporting system and/or information ➙ | Relationship building | .589 | .130 | 4.826 | .000*** | Supported H2-7 | |
Supporting system and/or information ➙ | Recommendation | .165 | .102 | 2.158 | .031* | Supported H2-8 | |
Supporting system and/or information ➙ | Feedback | .036 | .075 | .809 | .419 | Not supported H2-9 |