Trend analysis of positive and negative customer reviews over time
According to Fig. 1, the hospital’s total number of eWOM reviews has increased over years. Since 2015, eWOM reviews have risen sharply. Positive eWOM growth showed a downward trend beginning in 2019, while negative eWOM continues to rise. Since the onset of the COVID-19 in 2020, negative eWOM has increased significantly and exceeded the number of positive eWOM. Therefore, it suggests that the hospital’s negative reputation under the pandemic is stricter in the government’s health and welfare policy, and uncontrollable medical factors have caused more dissatisfaction and negligence in services.
Comparative statistical analysis of positive and negative scores
According to Table 1, the positive eWOM score is up to 5 points, reaching 67.87%, and according to Table 2, the negative eWOM score is 1 point, accounting for 79.53%. Therefore, it can be inferred that patients will be stimulated to leave comments online when they are highly satisfied and extremely dissatisfied.
Table 1
Statistical analysis of positive WOM reviews
Score
|
Number
|
Number (%)
|
3 points
|
16
|
7.24%
|
4 points
|
55
|
24.89%
|
5 points
|
150
|
67.87%
|
Total
|
221
|
100.00%
|
Note: The scoring range is 1 to 5 points, 3 to 5 points are classified as positive; 3 points for reviews are classified as positive or negative by the meaning of the message. |
Table 2
Statistical analysis of negative WOM reviews
Score
|
Number of times
|
Number of times (%)
|
1 point
|
136
|
79.53%
|
2 points
|
19
|
11.11%
|
3 points
|
16
|
9.36%
|
Total
|
171
|
100.00%
|
Note: The scoring range is 1 to 5 points, 1 point and 2 points for no reviews are classified as negative, and 3 to 5 points are classified as positive; 3 points for reviews are classified as positive or negative by the meaning of the message. |
Comparative Analysis of Importance of Positive and Negative Reviews
According to Table 3, positive reviews accounted for 57.01%, which belonged to the C level with no reviews. Negative reviews accounted for 43.27% of patients at the A levels with reviews of more than 51 words. Therefore, it can be inferred that patients are willing to spend more time describing the course of events for negative comments than for positive reviews. This also suggests that the negative reputation resulting from a service failure will significantly impact business performance.
Table 3
Number and percentage of positive and negative reviews importance levels
Rating
|
Rating description
|
PN
|
PN%
|
NN
|
NN%
|
TN
|
TN %
|
A
|
Reviews more than 51 words
|
23
|
10.41%
|
74
|
43.27%
|
97
|
24.74%
|
B
|
Reviews are 1 ~ 50 words
|
72
|
32.58%
|
67
|
39.18%
|
139
|
35.46%
|
C
|
Only ratings and no reviews
|
126
|
57.01%
|
30
|
17.54%
|
156
|
39.80%
|
Total
|
221
|
100.00%
|
171
|
100.00%
|
392
|
100.00%
|
Note: |
1. PN: number of positive reviews; NN: number of negative reviews; TN: Total number of reviews |
2. Positive review deduction (C) The number of samples that left a score but did not leave a message is 95(A + B). Negative review deduction (C) The number of samples that left a score but did not leave a message is 141(A + B). |
Comparative Analysis of the Number and Percentage of Positive and Negative Evaluations on the Five Dimensions of Service Quality
According to Table 4, “Assurance” accounted for 60.00% of positive reviews, followed by “Reliability” 42.11%. “Assurance” accounted for 72.34% of negative reviews, followed by “Responsiveness” with 28.37% and “Reliability” with 26.95%. Overall, the two most important aspects that affect positive and negative total reviews are “Assurance,” 67.37%, and “Reliability,” 33.05%. Therefore, it can be inferred that the most important factors affecting hospital service quality reviews are first the professional skills and attitudes of medical staff and second whether the patient’s medical issues can be solved. Service waiting is a factor that cannot be ignored in negative reviews.
Table 4
The number and percentage of positive and negative reviews on SERVQUAL’s five dimensions
Dimension
|
PN
|
PN% (N = 95)
|
NN
|
NN % (N = 141)
|
TN
|
TN % (N = 236)
|
Tangibles
|
25
|
26.32%
|
26
|
18.44%
|
51
|
21.61%
|
Reliability
|
40
|
42.11%
|
38
|
26.95%
|
78
|
33.05%
|
Responsiveness
|
6
|
6.32%
|
40
|
28.37%
|
46
|
19.49%
|
Assurance
|
57
|
60.00%
|
102
|
72.34%
|
159
|
67.37%
|
Empathy
|
9
|
9.47%
|
27
|
19.15%
|
36
|
15.25%
|
Note: |
1. PN: number of positive reviews; NN: number of negative reviews; TN: Total number of reviews |
2. Each review may cover more than one aspect. |
3. The number of samples with positive reviews deducted without leaving a message is 95. |
4. The number of samples with negative reviews deducted without leaving a message is 141. |
Comparative Analysis of Positive and Negative Reviews on SERVQUAL Scale Five Dimensions
According to Table 5, the positive and negative reviews of the tangibles dimension are the highest with “A4 Whether the hospital’s medical facilities are complete” (positive reviews 64.00%/negative reviews 42.31%). Both reviews are followed by “A1 Whether the public facilities of the hospital are complete” (positive rating 44.00%/negative rating 30.77%). This highlights the importance of the hospital’s medical facilities and public facilities.
Table 5
Number and percentage of positive and negative reviews on SERVQUAL’s five dimensions detailed questions
Dimension
|
Items
|
PN
|
PN %
|
NN
|
NN%
|
TN
|
TN%
|
Tangibles (PN = 25/NN = 26/TN = 51)
|
A1 Whether the public facilities of the hospital are complete
|
11
|
44.00%
|
8
|
30.77%
|
19
|
37.25%
|
A2 Whether the barrier-free facilities of the hospital are complete
|
1
|
4.00%
|
1
|
3.85%
|
2
|
3.92%
|
A3 Whether the hospital environment is clean, hygienic, and beautiful
|
4
|
16.00%
|
5
|
19.23%
|
9
|
17.65%
|
A4 Whether the hospital’s medical facilities are complete
|
16
|
64.00%
|
11
|
42.31%
|
27
|
52.94%
|
A5 Whether the clothing and appearance of medical staff are appropriate
|
0
|
0.00%
|
2
|
7.69%
|
2
|
3.92%
|
A6 Whether the other tangible services of the hospital are perfect
|
1
|
4.00%
|
6
|
23.08%
|
7
|
13.73%
|
Reliability
(PN = 40/NN = 38/ TN = 78)
|
B1 Whether the medical staff can effectively treat the condition
|
28
|
70.00%
|
24
|
63.16%
|
52
|
66.67%
|
B2 Whether the doctor can provide information of the condition and treatment in detail
|
14
|
35.00%
|
6
|
15.79%
|
20
|
25.64%
|
B3 Whether medical staff provide medical services promptly
|
1
|
2.50%
|
10
|
26.32%
|
11
|
14.10%
|
B4 Other reliability issues
|
1
|
2.50%
|
2
|
5.26%
|
3
|
3.85%
|
Responsiveness (PN = 6 /NN = 40/TN = 46)
|
C1 Whether medical staff can address service requests quickly
|
4
|
66.67%
|
29
|
72.50%
|
33
|
71.74%
|
C2 Whether the medical staff can provide information about the service process and wait time
|
1
|
16.67%
|
18
|
45.00%
|
19
|
41.30%
|
C3 Whether the medical staff actively and willingly assists the patient
|
3
|
50.00%
|
6
|
15.00%
|
9
|
19.57%
|
C4 Other responsiveness issues
|
0
|
0.00%
|
2
|
5.00%
|
2
|
4.35%
|
Assurance (PN = 57/NN = 102/TN = 159)
|
D1 Whether the medical staff possess professional skills and knowledge
|
25
|
43.86%
|
35
|
34.31%
|
60
|
37.74%
|
D2 Whether medical staff possess professional service communication attitude and etiquette
|
39
|
68.42%
|
74
|
72.55%
|
113
|
71.07%
|
D3 Whether medical staff can provide medical services promptly
|
0
|
0.00%
|
1
|
0.98%
|
1
|
0.63%
|
D4 Other assurance issues
|
0
|
0.00%
|
9
|
8.82%
|
9
|
5.66%
|
Empathy (PN = 9/NN = 27/TN = 36)
|
E1 Whether medical staff can meet individualized service demands
|
8
|
88.89%
|
11
|
40.74%
|
19
|
52.78%
|
E2 Whether the hospital’s consultation time can provide multiple time options
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
0
|
0.00%
|
E3 Whether the hospital can pay attention to the personal privacy of patients
|
0
|
0.00%
|
1
|
3.70%
|
1
|
2.78%
|
E4 Other empathy issues
|
4
|
44.44%
|
12
|
44.44%
|
16
|
44.44%
|
Note: 1. PN: number of positive reviews; 2. NN: number of negative reviews; 3. TN: Total number of reviews |
The reliability dimension has the highest positive and negative reviews with “B1 Whether the medical staff can effectively treat the condition” (positive reviews 70.00%/negative reviews 63.16%). Positive reviews are followed by “B2 Whether the doctor can provide information about the condition and treatment in detail,” and negative reviews are followed by “B3 Whether medical staff provides medical services promptly.”
The responsiveness dimension is the highest in both positive and negative ratings, “C1 Whether medical staff can address service requests quickly” (positive reviews 66.67%/negative reviews 72.50%). Positive reviews are followed by “C3 Whether the medical staff actively and willingly assist the patient” (50.00%); negative reviews are followed by “C2 Whether the medical staff can provide information about the service process and wait time” (45.00%).
In the assurance dimension, the highest positive and negative reviews are "D2 Whether medical staff possesses professional service communication attitude and etiquette" (positively rated 68.42%/negatively rated 72.55%); the second-highest is “D1 Whether the medical staff possesses professional skills and knowledge” (positively rated 43.86%/negatively rated 34.31%). This highlights the importance of the professional attitude and skills of the hospital’s medical staff.
The empathy dimension is the highest-rated: “E1 Whether medical staff can meet individualized service demands” (88.89% positive), which was followed by “E4 Other empathy issues” (44.44%). On the contrary, “E4 Other empathy issues” (44.44%) had the highest negative reviews, followed by “E1 Whether medical staff can meet individualized service demands” (40.74%).