The Servqual Method as an Assessment Tool of the Quality of Medical Services in Selected Asian Countries

Abstract

Introduction: The Servqual (an acronym from the words “service” and “quality”) method is used to assess the quality of provided services on the basis of standardised evaluation parameters. This method is based on five gaps resulting from the discrepancy between expected and received service quality. The aim of this meta-analysis and the systematic review was to view and assess the major differences in the five dimensions of the Servqual method used to evaluate the quality of delivered health care services in selected Asian countries. Another goal of the study was to confirm the use of the Servqual method as a suitable tool for assessing the quality of health care services. Methods: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines for systemic reviews and meta-analyses. The following electronic databases for medical publications were used: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched for articles published from January 2000 to April 2020. The databases were explored with original search queries containing the following terms: “Servqual”, “service quality”, “Servqual model”, “servqual questionnaire”, “health service quality”, “health care services”, “patients’ expectation”, “patients’ perception”, “expectation”, “perception”, and “health care services”, in combination using “AND” and “OR”. In order to minimize bias, two researchers (PK and DK) independently performed an online search for peer-reviewed papers, using the combinations of the above-mentioned words. In addition, references of eligible publications were checked. All disagreements, regarding the inclusion or exclusion of specific studies, were resolved through consultations among all the authors. Results: A total of 96 reports were identified and submitted to a preliminary screening selection. As a result of the pre-screening stage, 64 papers were qualified to further evaluation. The output of the evaluation brought 15 reported studies, meeting the pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 5903 (ranging from 20 to 439 in individual reports), and 54% of them were women. Eight studies (53%) were from Iran, two from Pakistan (13%) and one each from Arabia, Malaysia, South Korea, Bangladesh, and Iraq (each-about 7%). The results showed gaps between patients’ expectations and perceptions in all five dimensions of Servqual in almost each analysed study. The highest and lowest values of the gaps in quality scores were associated with the dimensions of reliability, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness, respectively. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that the method of Servqual is broadly used in various medical sectors to assess the quality of medical services provided. In addition, the study demonstrated that patients had significantly higher expectations of the medical services offered in the five dimensions studied. The results, obtained through the Servqual method, may help improve and monitor the quality of services provided by different institutions.