Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26860466›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

A marketing perspective to "delight" the "patient 2.0": new and challenging expectations for the healthcare provider.

Luca Buccoliero, Elena Bellio, Maria Mazzola, Elisa Solinas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luca BuccolieroDepartment of Marketing and CERMES (Centre For Research on Marketing and Services), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen, 1, 20136, Milan, Italy. luca.buccoliero@unibocconi.it.
Elena BellioDepartment of Marketing and CERMES (Centre For Research on Marketing and Services), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen, 1, 20136, Milan, Italy. elena.bellio@unibocconi.it.
Maria MazzolaCERMES (Centre For Research on Marketing and Services), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen, 1, 20136, Milan, Italy. maria.mazzola@unibocconi.it.
Elisa SolinasCERMES (Centre For Research on Marketing and Services), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen, 1, 20136, Milan, Italy. elisa.solinas@unibocconi.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study aims at investigating the characteristics and the satisfaction determinants of the emerging patient profile. This profile appears to be more demanding and "empowered" compared to the ones traditionally conceived, asking for unconventional healthcare services and for a closer relationship with providers.

methodsBoth qualitative (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (survey) analyses were performed on a random sample of 2808 Italian citizens-patients. Analyses entailed descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and linear regressions.

resultsFour relevant dimensions of patient 2.0 experience were identified through a literature review on experiential marketing in healthcare. Beta coefficients exhibited the effect that different healthcare experiential elements have on patient 2.0 satisfaction.

conclusionsResults allow to state that a new marketing approach, based on patient 2.0 characteristics and value drivers, should be adopted in the healthcare sector. Critical satisfaction drivers and new technological healthcare guidelines are identified in order to match the new patient profile needs.

Indexed as

Marketing of Health ServicesPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Care SectorHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26860466
PMCPMC4748458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.