Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38456118›Full record

ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2024

Importance-Performance Analysis of Clinical Forensic Services Quality at Bhayangkara Hospital Pekanbaru, Indonesia.

Dedi Afandi, Merita Arini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Dedi AfandiForensic Medicine and Medicolegal Department, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, Indonesia.
Merita AriniMaster of Hospital Administration Study Program, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Service quality improvement efforts must focus on the utilisation of resources for continuous quality improvement. The importance-performance analysis (IPA) method is useful in finding service quality items that require corrective action. This study implemented the IPA method to obtain items that should be prioritised in improving the quality of a hospital's clinical forensic services. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 284 clinical forensic patients at Bhayangkara Hospital, Pekanbaru, Indonesia was conducted. Self-administered and paper-based questionnaires, specifically the modified service quality (SERVQUAL)-based questionnaire, were used as the study instruments. Twenty-two service quality items were used as indicators and they were divided into five dimensions of service quality: i) reliability, ii) responsiveness, iii) assurance, iv) empathy and v) tangibility. The data were analysed using the IPA method. Results: The results showed that only seven items had a gap and a level of conformity that met the expectations of clinical forensic patients. Improvements in service quality should prioritise four items: i) providing a more private examination room for clinical forensic patients, ii) improving healthcare workers' understanding of patient needs, iii) improving the readiness of healthcare workers to conduct examinations and iv) enhancing the clarity of information about examination procedures. Conclusion: The IPA method yielded several high-priority items that need to be improved; therefore, the hospital must focus on improving the quality of clinical forensic services.

Indexed as

forensic clinicimportance-performance analysisservice quality

Identifiers

PMID38456118
PMCPMC10917584

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.