Satisfactory Assessment for Performance of Orthopaedic Research Service

Yaowaret Tangsopa; Patarawan Woratanarat; Chanika Angsanuntsukh

doi:10.33165/rmj.2020.43.2.227132

Authors

Yaowaret Tangsopa Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Patarawan Woratanarat Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Chanika Angsanuntsukh Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33165/rmj.2020.43.2.227132

Keywords:

Satisfaction, Effectiveness, Service, Research, Orthopaedics

Abstract

Background: Orthopaedic research service needs to be evaluated its effectiveness.

Objective: To assess customer satisfaction of effectiveness in orthopaedic research service.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among staffs, residents, fellows, and officers who used orthopaedic research service between June 2018 and June 2019. Customers who provided incomplete data were excluded. Baseline characteristics such as gender, highest education, types of employment, and positions were collected. Satisfaction of effectiveness of research service was assessed using the 23-item questionnaire with 8 dimensions; responsibilities, competency, diligence, public interests, creativity, communication, service mind, and productivity.

Results: From 80 participated customers, there were 61 males (76.25%), and 56 residents (70%). Customers satisfied at a good-excellent level in service mind (95.30%), diligence (94.80%), communication (94.75%), public interests (94.60%), productivity (94.50%), responsibility (94.13%), competency (94.13%), and creativity (93.80%). Baseline characteristics were not significantly associated with satisfaction.

Conclusions: Customers satisfied orthopaedic research service at the good-excellent level more than 93%. Improvement of responsibility, competency, and creativity may increase customer satisfaction.

References

Vroom VH. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964.

Giese JL, Cote JA. Defining consumer satisfaction. AMS Review. 2000;1(1):1-22. https://www.proserv.nu/b/Docs/Defining%20Customer%20Satisfaction.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2020.

Wisner JD, Stanley LL. Process Management: Creating Value along the Supply Chain. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western; 2007.

Hom W. An Overview of Customer Satisfaction Models. California: RP Group Proceedings, California Community Colleges; 2000:99-110. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED463825.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2020.

Sereerat S. Consumer Behavior. Bangkok: Visitpattana Publishing Company; 2003.

Wiio OA, Goldhaber GM, Yates MP. Organizational communication research: time for reflection? Annals of the International Communication Association. 1980;4(1):83-97. doi:10.1080/23808985.1980.11923796.

McIntosh RW, Goeldner CR. Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.

UCSF Office of Sponsored Research. 2014 Research Services Satisfaction Survey Results. UCSF Office of Sponsored Research website. https://osr.ucsf.edu/content/2014-research-services-satisfaction-survey-results. Published November 20, 2014. Accessed February 20, 2020.

DeFleur ML, Ball-Rokeach SJ. Theories of Mass Communication. Enskede: TPB; 1996.

Bunyarit N. A Study of Factors Affecting Work Efficiency of Employees of Chonburi Provincial Administration Organization [master thesis]. Chonburi: Graduate School of Commerce, Burapha University; 2015. http://digital_collect.lib.buu.ac.th/dcms/files/56710142.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2020.

Ramol B. Customers’ Satisfaction and Needs Towards the Services of Union Auction Co. Ltd [master thesis]. Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University; 2010. http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Gui_Cou_Psy/Boonsak_R.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2020.