Patients’ perception of quality service delivery of public hospitals in Nigeria using analytical hierarchy process

Document Type: Articles



Introduction: Patients are recently more aware and conscious. This is because of the belief that a high level of quality can translate into patient satisfaction. This is critical for healthcare providers as they deal with life. This recognition by both the service provider and service receivers made the government to establish units of service commission (SERVICOM) in each of the governmental agencies including hospitals in Nigeria to monitor the level of quality of service delivery. However, to what extent do patients’ perceptions about health services seem to have been largely recognized remain unclear by health care providers, despite the (SERVICOM) units in public institutions in Nigeria?Method: A cross-sectional analytical study using convenient sample method, based on the fact that not every patient of the selected hospitals can be chosen, was performed on 400 patients who received health services at four different public hospitals in Ogun state Nigeria. The selection of these hospitals was based on the zones in the state (Egba, Ijebu, Remo and Yewa area of Ogun-state). The instrument was a valid and reliable analytical hierarchy process based questionnaire containing five service quality dimensions. Data were analyzed using SPSS, Expert choice and Microsoft Excel software to determine the perception of patients towards service quality delivery in pairwise comparison of judgment consistent at less than 10%.Results:The results showed the composite priorities of the patients’ perception with respect to determinants of the patients’ perception towards quality of services delivered in the public hospitals in Nigeria. The most important factor to patients was the reliability dimension with composite priority 0.24 or 24% followed by the responsiveness dimension with 0.22 assurance dimension 0.21, tangibility dimension with 0.21, and the least determinant factor was the empathy dimension with 0.1101.Conclusion: Based on the results, the weights and rank order of the criteria (service quality dimensions) and the alternatives (sub-criteria) are essential research driven output for policy formulation and implementation in the healthcare sector for workers’ capacity building towards better service delivery.JEL Code: I1, I12, C80, C83.Keywords: Service quality, Patients, Perception, Analytical hierarchy process, Healthcare, Hospitals, Service delivery

  1. Roshnee Ramsaran-Fowdar R. The relative importance of service dimensions in a healthcare setting. International journal of health care quality assurance. 2008;21(1):104-24.
  2. Gilbert FW, Dent RP. Adaptation ana’C astomer Expectations of Health Care. 1992.
  3. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Social science & medicine. 1997;45(12):1829-43.
  4. Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry. 1988:25-36.
  5. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-8.
  6. Levine AS, Plume SK, Nelson EC. Transforming patient feedback into strategic action plans. Qual Manag Health Care. 1997;5(3):28-40.
  7. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. the Journal of Marketing. 1985:41-50.
  8. Amole B, Oyatoye E, Kuye O. Determinants of patient satisfaction on service quality dimensions in the Nigeria teaching hospitals. Economics Management Innovation Scientific Technical Journal of Morovian. 2015;7(3):3-20.
  9. Oyatoye, E. O., Adebiyi, S. O. & Amole, B. B. Evaluating Subscribers’ preference for service attributes of mobile telecommunication in Nigeria using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2015; 7(2). 171 - 187
  10. Saaty TL. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, PA: Rws Publications; 1996.
  11. Cronin Jr JJ, Taylor SA. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. The journal of marketing. 1992:55-68.
  12. Potter C, Morgan P, Thompson A. Continuous quality improvement in an acute hospital: a report of an action research project in three hospital departments. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 1994;7(1):4-29.
  13. Pakdil F, Harwood TN. Patient satisfaction in a preoperative assessment clinic: an analysis using SERVQUAL dimensions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2005;16(1):15-30.
  14. Clemes MD, Ozanne LK, Laurensen WL. Patients’ perceptions of service quality dimensions: an empirical examination of health care in New Zealand. Health Mark Q. 2001;19(1):3-22.
  15. Lee P-M, Khong P, Ghista DN, Lee P-M, Khong P, Ghista DN. Impact of deficient healthcare service quality. The TQM Magazine. 2006;18(6):563-71.
  16. Turris SA. Unpacking the concept of patient satisfaction: a feminist analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(3):293-8.
  17. Adebiyi SO, Oyatoye EO, Kuye OL. An Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis: Application to Subscriber Retention Decisions in the Nigerian Mobile Telecommunications. International Journal of Management and Economics. 2015;48(1):63-83.
  18. Saaty TL. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Rws Publications; 2000.
  19. Taylor III BW. Management Science. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice- Hall, Inc; 2001.