How Are Consumers, Service and Market Factors Related to Customer Loyalty in Medical Service? -Targeting the Medical Consumer in a City-

Sunhee Lee, Hyunmi Kim, Juhye Kim, Gwiyeom Ha
2008 Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health  
Objectives : This study was performed to explore customer royalty and the related factors. Methods : 900 households(a 1% sample) were randomly selected from the total population of K city located in Kangwon province. An interview survey was performed with using a structured questionnaire for the subjects(923 persons) who had used medical service during the year before the survey, and the survey was done September, 2002. Results : When comparing the relating factors related with customer royalty
more » ... according to the sociodemographic characteristics, the older group showed a significantly higher level of recognition for service quality, service reputation, internal customers>attitudes and switching cost. The lower income group showed a higher level of recognition for service quality, service image and switching cost. The lower educated group showed a higher level of recognition for service reputation, service image and internal customers>attitudes. The higher educated group showed a higher level of recognition for perceived risk, and seeking variety. In addition, the expert group or the service and manufacturing workers group showed a higher level of recognition for service involvement. On multiple regression analysis, internal customers>attitudes, service image, service reputation, service quality, switching cost, and substitutability showed significant relations with customer loyalty. Conclusions : This study showed that customer loyalty was significantly influenced by service factors like internal customers>attitudes, service image, service reputation, and service quality, and by market factors like switching cost, and substitutability. The results of this study can be used as a baseline for developing strategies to create and keep customers with high loyalty. J Prev Med Public Health 2008;41(5):315-322
doi:10.3961/jpmph.2008.41.5.315 pmid:18827499 fatcat:oj5dwo3kfrh6xlz74ruzisquhy