Patients satisfaction
Formulation of Patient satisfaction
Pascoe (1983) described patient satisfaction as ". . . the health care recipient's a reaction to salient aspects of the context, process, and consequence of their service encounters. . . (pp. 189)". It involves a ". . . cognitively centered analysis or grading of directly-received services including structure, process, and end result of services. . . and an affectively based mostly respond to the framework, process, and result of services. . . (pp. 189)". In terms of the formulation of patient satisfaction, Pascoe explained the Discrepancy Theory and Fulfillment Theory.
The two ideas were originated from job satisfaction research, the Fulfillment Theory assumed the magnitude of the outcomes received under particular circumstances determine satisfaction and neglected any mental evaluation of the final results. Discrepancy Theory has used psychological analysis of outcomes under consideration in satisfaction formulation and said that dissatisfaction results if the actual outcomes were deviated from the subject's preliminary expectation. It had been comprehended that the Discrepancy methods that view patients prior objectives as determinants of satisfaction have be frequently applied in many patient satisfaction researches, but what can determine patient expectations at the first place?
Fox and Storms (1981) present two collections of intervening parameters in satisfaction formulation, including Orientations Towards Treatment and Conditions of Care, mediated by patients' communal and cultural characteristics. Orientations Towards Good care refer to patients' difference in their needs and expectation in a medical face, as people would have different values in the causes of illness and in the socially-patterned replies to health issues. Conditions of Attention refer to different Theoretical approaches to care, Situation of attention and Final results of care provided by the health care providers. Patient satisfaction results if the Orientations Towards Care and attention was congruent with the Conditions of Attention. When the individual's Orientations Towards Health care, including the understanding and interpretation of health care, can be afflicted by their broader social and ethnic contexts, individuals with distributed characteristics may presented a socially-patterned reactions in their satisfaction formulation appropriately. Suchman Edward Allen proposed that ". . . certain socio-cultural history factors will predispose the individual toward receiving or rejecting the strategy of professional treatments and, hence, increase or decrease the possibility of turmoil between patient and medical professional. . . (pp. 558) [19]"which basically correlated patient's socio-demographic factors with satisfaction.
Patient satisfaction and Community identity theory
Linder-Pelz (1982) assumed a value-expectancy model in satisfaction formulation and described "patient satisfaction as a good attitude. . . a positive evaluations of distinct dimension of healthcare, like a single scientific visit, the complete treatment process, particular health care setting or plan or medical care system generally (pp. 578)". Attitude was described by Fishbein and Azjen (1975) as the "general evaluation or sense of favorableness toward the object in question". Built on the view of the Friendly identification theory that "attitudes are moderated by environmental, individual, physical, emotional or sociological variables (pp. 72)", Jessie L. Tucker (2000) said that patient satisfaction shall be "moderated by socio-demographic traits such as environmental, individual, physical, emotional and sociological characteristics (pp. 72)". In her later research, Jessie L. Tucker (2002) provided empirical support to patient satisfaction and public individuality theory. Patient satisfaction theory considered patient satisfaction as an attitude, and her results established that patient's analysis of gain access to, communication, final results and quality were significant predictors of satisfaction. Social personal information theory argued that attitudes were altered and damaged by demographic, situational, environmental, and mental factors, and her research studies mentioned that patient's specific characteristics significantly explain their satisfaction.
Haslam et al. (1993) study of in-group favoritism and sociable identity models of stereotype formation recommended that "manifestations of favoritism are hypersensitive to comparative and normative features of social context (pp. 97)". The effect revealed a person's judgments will be impinged by his/her boarder macro-social framework and background knowledge, and the stereotype formulation weren't automatics but instead accustomed by the public framework where meaning and attitudes towards different aspects were created.
Social identification theory was outlined by Sociologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) and was defined as "the individual's knowledge that he/she belongs to certain social groups as well as some psychological and value value to him/her of the group account (pp. 2) [17]". The theory presumed that individual's process a repertoire of home identities with individuating characteristic at the non-public extreme and communal categorical characteristics at the public extreme. With regards to the social context, the non-public id may prominent and people would perceive themselves as users of a interpersonal group and take up shared behaviour towards a particular aspect, and perhaps satisfaction towards attention, or vice versa. To construct a social identity, the theory suggested that individuals will "firstly categorize and specify themselves as customers of a communal category or assign themselves a sociable identification; second, they form or learn the stereotypic norms of they category; and third, they assign these norms to themselves and so their behavior becomes more normative as their category regular membership (pp. 15) [42]". The categories under which individuals assign themselves at the first place will depends upon a person's public contexts such as life experience, backgrounds, culture and situation etc.
Social identification theory was directly related to the "Self-categorization theory", that was defined by Hogg and McGarty as the theoretical concept of Social Identify itself and "concerns the ways assortment of individuals comes to determine and feel themselves to be always a social group and exactly how does shared group membership effect their behavior". Lorenzi-Cioldi and Doise said that Self-categorization theory resulted in accentuation of between-group differences and within-group similarities by the actual fact that "different degrees of categorization are simultaneously employed by group users to encode information regarding their own group and also to the other group (pp. 74) [20]", and the role constraints of participants of inter-group bring about a consistent mode of responding. Based on the theoretical framework, it was assumed that patients with shared socio-demographic characteristics would categorize information they identified (including experience from a medical face) for succeeding satisfaction rating in a specific level and therefore presented a far more or less homogenous score with the treatment received.
