Table 1.
Demographic analysis of patients' perceived value.
| Aspects | Indicators | Numerical value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary indicators | Secondary indicators | Actual perceived value | Degree of importance | Importance of primary indicators | Importance of aspects | |
| Functional value | Treatment effects | Effect | 3.76 | 4.16 | 4.14 | 3.91 |
| Diagnosis | 3.98 | 4.54 | ||||
| Prices | Reasonability of prices | 3.52 | 4.06 | 3.96 | ||
| Accuracy of bills | 3.89 | 4.07 | ||||
| Normalization | Standardization | 3.95 | 4.18 | 3.92 | ||
| Transparency | 4.00 | 3.83 | ||||
| Convenience and accessibility | Reasonability of layout | 3.65 | 3.82 | 3.61 | ||
| Convenience of medical service | 3.79 | 3.75 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Emotional value | Communication | Doctors' attitude | 4.03 | 4.21 | 3.97 | 3.92 |
| Nurses' attitude | 4.06 | 4.05 | ||||
| Comfort | Environmental hygiene | 3.78 | 3.94 | 3.87 | ||
| Completion of supporting facilities | 3.84 | 3.93 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Social value | Hospital reputation | Advanced medical equipment | 4.18 | 3.84 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Influence of medical skills | 4.40 | 4.13 | ||||
(1) The secondary indictors only showed the most important two; (2) “Importance of aspects” was average values of “Importance of Primary indicators,” and “Importance of Primary indicators” was average values of “Importance of secondary indicators.”