INTRODUCTION

Today, healthcare providers must ensure that their patients are satisfied with the quality of medical services they receive, as this plays a vital role in customer retention, loyalty, and repeated referral to the same provider.1 Loyalty results in receiving continued care and preventive services, which benefits patients by promoting health.2 Patient loyalty is establishing an emotional relationship between a provider and patients. This means that the patient prefers the medical services of a specific facility and provider even though the cost is higher.3 Loyal patients will likely return to the same providers, distribute the positive word of mouth, and finally recommend the physician to friends and acquaintances.4 Many factors are influential in the loyalty of patients to the doctor, such as reliability quality,5 doctors’ interaction behavior,6 service quality,7 empathy,8 nursing care9 and patient satisfaction.10 Medical personnel’s behavior, physicians’ emotional behavior, and nurses’ behavior are correlated with patient loyalty.11

Delcourt et al. concluded that the emotional skill of medical staff in a clinic affects creating understanding between customers and medical staff, and this understanding creates customer satisfaction and loyalty.12 The key factor in increasing the market share and creating a sustainable competitive advantage is paying attention to loyalty.3 The quality of the relationship between the patient and the physician is one of the dimensions of service quality, which is a strong predictor of the behavior of patients’ loyalty. The physician’s behavior should encourage the patient to continue medical care.13 Due to the importance of loyalty in the quality of care, patient adherence and use of medical services, we aimed to assess factors correlated with patient loyalty to an orthopedic surgeon. We secondarily aimed to assess factors associated with patients referring the provider to friends and family.

METHODS

Design and settings

This cross-sectional study was performed on 190 patients presented to an academic orthopedic clinic. The ethics committee of the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences approved the study (IRB no. 13960400, Study no. 951516). We included patients over 18 years of age regardless of the type of visit (new patient, follow-up, and postop). Exclusion criteria were dementia and cognitive impairment, preventing the completion of checklist.

We prepared a checklist after reviewing the literature and the previous studies. After extracting the possible related factors, the checklist was reviewed by two orthopedic surgeons. It was reconciled into three main categories with 14 items, including the provider’s physical characteristics (gender, age, attire, attentive posture), provider’s academic achievements (skill and expertise, number of publications, academic activity, the title of certification (MD, Ph.D), and position (e.g., chief of service, dean of the department), and provider’s behavioral aspects (cheerful face, tone of speech, follow-up, truthfulness, empathy). We found these items compelling in sticking with a provider based on the literature. Patients were asked to fill out the checklist in the waiting room before seeing the provider. Items scored on a Likert scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important). Moreover, each item was scored once about “staying with a physician” and again about “recommending to others (friends and acquaintances).” The majority of the office visits are new patient referrals and follow-ups. New patient referrals are mainly influenced by “recommending to others” and adherence to the follow-up visits is affected by “staying with the physician.” Other variables collected in this study were age, education, condition (lower extremity, upper extremity, spine), occupation, and type of patient visit (new patient and follow-up). Jobs other than a desk job were considered a physically active job.

Patients were enrolled sequentially if they met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We did not keep track of the number of patients refused to respond. however, in our experience, patients were eager to cooperate and non-response rate was negligible.

A researcher provided the checklist to the patients prior to seeing the physician and the completed checklists were collected while the patient was in the waiting area. The physician was not involved in completing the checklist at all. Checklists were completed before seeing the provider and while the patient was waiting in the waiting area.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were presented as frequency and percentage. The scores for each item in the questionnaire were presented as mean ± standard deviations. Categorical variables were compared between the groups using an Independent t-test for gender and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the type of visit, education, condition, and occupation. The Kolmogorov-Simonov test was used to check normality and the data was distributed normally. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 39±16 years (range: 16-87), including 114 females (60%) and 76 males (40%). Most of the patients had a physically active job (n=118, 62.1%), undergraduate education (n=92, 48.4%), upper extremity conditions (n=93, 49%), and presented for a new patient visit (n=117, 61.6%). [Table 1]

Table 1.Frequency of occupation, education, visit, and condition
Variable Frequency Percent
Occupation Physically active 118 62
Non physically active 57 30
Not working 15 8.0
Education Illiterate/school 41 22
Undergraduate 92 48
Graduate 55 29
Post-graduate 2 1.0
Visit New patient 117 61
Follow up 47 25
Postop 26 14
Condition Upper Extremity 93 48
Lower Extremity 75 40
Spine 22 12

Providers’ physical characteristics (gender, age, attire, and attentive posture) and academic achievements (position, publication, and degree) scored low to moderate, between 2 and 3 out of 5. The ‘skill and expertise’ item scored the highest, followed by all behavioral aspects, including cheerful face, tone of speech, follow-up, truthfulness, and empathy. There was no significant difference between “staying with the same physician” and “recommending to others.” [Table 2]

Table 2.Mean score of loyalty checklist items
Variable Mean SD P value
Cheerful face Staying with a physician 4.7 0.6 0.006
Recommending to others 4.5 0.8
Tone of speech Staying with a physician 4.7 0.6 0.168
Recommending to others 4.6 0.8
Follow-up Staying with a physician 4.7 0.6 0.135
Recommending to others 4.6 0.7
Truthfulness Staying with a physician 4.7 0.5 0.144
Recommending to others 4.6 0.8
Empathy Staying with a physician 4.3 0.9 0.306
Recommending to others 4.2 1.0
Gender Staying with a physician 2.5 1.6 0.223
Recommending to others 2.3 1.6
Age Staying with a physician 2.6 1.5 0.194
Recommending to others 2.4 1.5
Attire Staying with a physician 3.2 1.5 0.060
Recommending to others 2.9 1.6
Attentive posture Staying with a physician 2.3 1.4 1
Recommending to others 2.3 1.5
Skill and expertise Staying with a physician 4.9 0.5 1
Recommending to others 4.9 0.5
Number of publications Staying with a physician 3.8 1.3 0.149
Recommending to others 3.6 1.4
Academic activity Staying with a physician 4.0 1.3 0.031
Recommending to others 3.7 1.4
Title of certification Staying with a physician 4.5 0.9 -
Recommending to others 4.5 0.9
Position Staying with a physician 2.6 1.5 0.052
Recommending to others 2.3 1.5

The item scores showed no significant difference between males and females, occupation, education, and the type of visit [Table 3].

Table 3.Comparison of mean score of loyalty checklist items by gender, visit, job types and education
Variable Comparison P value Comparison P value Comparison P value Comparison P value
Cheerful face Staying with a physician By sex 0.502 By visit type 0.590 By job type 0.686 By education 0.686
Recommending to others By sex 0.638 By visit type 0.242 By job type 0.332 By education 0.271
Tone of speech Staying with a physician By sex 0.444 By visit type 0.934 By job type 0.626 By education 0.536
Recommending to others By sex 0.511 By visit type 0.657 By job type 0.397 By education 0.376
Follow-up Staying with a physician By sex 0.861 By visit type 0.186 By job type 0.010 By education 0.106
Recommending to others By sex 0.242 By visit type 0.780 By job type 0.129 By education 0.101
Truthfulness Staying with a physician By sex 0.966 By visit type 0.601 By job type 0.294 By education 0.142
Recommending to others By sex 0.527 By visit type 0.680 By job type 0.668 By education 0.662
Empathy Staying with a physician By sex 0.149 By visit type 0.091 By job type 0.546 By education 0.504
Recommending to others By sex 0.207 By visit type 0.853 By job type 0.654 By education 0.730
Gender Staying with a physician By sex 0.143 By visit type 0.473 By job type 0.155 By education 0.182
Recommending to others By sex 0.550 By visit type 0.728 By job type 0.820 By education 0.858
Age Staying with a physician By sex 0.754 By visit type 0.770 By job type 0.373 By education 0.348
Recommending to others By sex 0.658 By visit type 0.675 By job type 0.875 By education 0.870
Attire Staying with a physician By sex 0.683 By visit type 0.549 By job type 0.522 By education 0.426
Recommending to others By sex 0.981 By visit type 0.337 By job type 0.838 By education 0.822
Attentive posture Staying with a physician By sex 0.304 By visit type 0.824 By job type 0.924 By education 0.885
Recommending to others By sex 0.326 By visit type 0.566 By job type 0.644 By education 0.722
Skill and expertise Staying with a physician By sex 0.575 By visit type 0.267 By job type 0.634 By education 0.553
Recommending to others By sex 0.639 By visit type 0.863 By job type 0.212 By education 0.179
Publications Staying with a physician By sex 0.984 By visit type 0.506 By job type 0.737 By education 0.873
Recommending to others By sex 0.368 By visit type 0.160 By job type 0.654 By education 0.515
Academic activity Staying with a physician By sex 0.682 By visit type 0.829 By job type 0.570 By education 0.532
Recommending to others By sex 0.416 By visit type 0.955 By job type 0.840 By education 0.821
Title of certification Staying with a physician By sex 0.518 By visit type 0.395 By job type 0.845 By education 0.839
Recommending to others By sex 0.860 By visit type 0.507 By job type 0.916 By education 0.925
Position Staying with a physician By sex 0.180 By visit type 0.044 By job type 0.138 By education 0.135
Recommending to others By sex 0.191 By visit type 0.237 By job type 0.539 By education 0.575

Discussion

We were curious about the effect of physicians’ behavior on their relationship with the patients to increase patient loyalty for further care services. Many factors are shown to improve patient loyalty.

In our study, providers’ physical characteristics including gender, age, attire, and attentive posture, and academic achievements including position, publication, and degree scored low to moderate, between 2 and 3 out of 5. As results revealed, the “skill and expertise” item had the highest score, followed by all behavioral aspects, including cheerful face, tone of speech, follow-up, truthfulness, and empathy, but there was no significant difference between “staying with the same physician” and “recommending to others” as well between two gender groups, occupation, educational level and the type of visit.

Li et al. and Shafiq et al. highlighted that service quality is crucial in enhancing patient loyalty.14 Indeed service quality can mediate the relationship between patient loyalty and physician.10 The quality of care services not only increases patient loyalty but also patient satisfaction and medication adherence, so the improvement of the patients can be affected.5 According to the report by Bentum-Micah et al., some non-specialized factors, such as assurance and empathy, can affect patient loyalty.8

“Skill and expertise” is a highly scored determinant. Appropriate behavior builds physician-patient trust, which has been shown to improve patient adherence and compliance.15 Although expertise is of important to choose a provider, it cannot stand alone to adhere patients to the same physician or even recommended to others. “Communication management” includes continued appropriate behavior throughout care and after-care.

Elwyn et al. described “shared decision-making” as a model for clinical practice which requires a good clinical relationship with the patient. Through this process, patients are engaged and supported to express their preferences and expectations during the decision-making process. “Shared decision-making” has three stages: 1) introducing the options, 2) describing the options, including risks, benefits, and expected prognosis 3) helping patients to discover preferences and make decisions  through awareness and respect for “what is most important to the patient”.16

Communication might be affected by a busy office and upset patients due to a long wait time. Almomani and Alsarheed showed that enhanced outpatient clinic management software can reduce patients’ waiting time and increase patients’ satisfaction.17 Starr showed that enhanced digital image management software can improve patient care in the dermatologic surgery field.18 La Padula et al. developed simulation software to assess patient satisfaction following breast augmentation using augmented reality.19

Zhou et al., in a systematic review of patient loyalty, revealed eight determinants, including trust, satisfaction, quality, commitment, value, hospital brand image, organizational citizenship behavior, and customer complaints.3 Health service providers focusing on patient loyalty achieve more economic or noneconomic benefits.20 Eleuch showed that patient loyalty depends on the technical quality standards and the behavior of the hospital staff and care service providers.21 The quality of service results in patient satisfaction affecting patient loyalty.22

One of the main factors for the quality of service is skill and expertise, which in our study had the highest score in patient loyalty. Gender, age, attire, attentive posture, and position items scored between 2 and 3, showing a low value for patient loyalty. In contrast, cheerful face, tone of speech, follow-up, truthfulness, empathy, skill and expertise, and title scored between 4 and 5, showing the importance of patient loyalty. Our study showed no significant difference in scores between male and female patients, among visit types, and occupations. There are some technique tactics to earn patients’ loyalty, like asking about patients’ experience after receiving medical services, focusing on team care, and being responsible for any side effects.23 Enhancing a good experience has a strong correlation with a willingness to return to the same facility to receive the same or other services.24 Wu et al. highlighted the effect of emotional interaction, perceived expertise, social norm, personalization, and perceived security on patient loyalty.25 In addition, Yu et al. stated that psychological contracts between patient and physician must be reinforced.26 Chen et al. emphasized nursing care as a leading factor in patient loyalty. They showed that patient experience with nursing care is a crucial direct and positive factor in patient loyalty.9

There are some limitations in our study such as the design of our research in which interventional studies can rigorously show the effect of specific interventions such as being nervous or cheerful in front of the patients (if appropriate ethically), and sample size in which larger studies have more power in generalization of the findings. In addition, we used a checklist, which was not validated and can be influenced by the culture of the working place and does not reflect all regions.

Conclusion

According to our study, factors correlating with patient loyalty were cheerful face, tone of speech, follow-up, truthfulness, empathy, skill and expertise, indicating the critical role of the provider’s attitude in keeping the patient and being recommended to friends and family. Of note, the physical characteristics of the provider showed little correlation in sticking with the same provider for continued care. Although skill and expertise might be correlated with scheduling the first visit, still attitude and behavioral factors may be correlated with sticking with the same provider for continued care.


Declaration of conflict of interest

The authors do NOT have any potential conflicts of interest for this manuscript.’

Declaration of funding

The authors received NO financial support for the preparation, research, authorship, and publication of this manuscript.

Declaration of ethical approval for study

The ethics committee of the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences approved the study (IRB no. 13960400, Study no. 951516).

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients.

Acknowledgments

Orthopedic Research Center at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences