Consumer Value Preferences in Healthcare: Insights for Value-centred Management

Abstract

Advances in healthcare service research emphasize a value-driven approach in healthcare by pressing the need to acknowledge what matters to the patient against the conventional approach of what should be provisioned in the service. This research study adopts a consumer-centric perspective of value creation, and explores consumer value preferences in healthcare services, using netnography of online consumer reviews of cancer patients. Six different types of consumer value are identified, which carry varying consumer expectations. These are excellence, novelty, spirituality, ethics, privacy and control. The research findings confirm that all types of consumer values are not positive; rather, there is a presence of positive and negative (or must-be) elements. Privacy and ethics are identified as the negative or must-be type of consumer value, which creates not much satisfaction, but their absence is dissatisfying. Novelty and control are identified as positive value types whose absence may not be that problematic, but their enhancement creates greater customer satisfaction. The findings provide shreds of evidence to the claim that all value types are not positive, and consumers often make trade-offs between positive and negative value types while evaluating services. Future research is suggested in different healthcare contexts (e.g., chronic vs. non-chronic disease) to develop value-centred management strategies.

A Mapping Review of Netnography in Nursing

“…Of the total number of articles, 26.4% ( n = 14) reported that their study had been reviewed by an ethics board (Alang & Fomotar, 2015; Andréasson et al, 2018; Aragão et al, 2018; Boursier et al, 2022; Cano-Hila & Argemí-Baldich, 2021; Ellinghaus et al, 2021; Gün & Şenol, 2019; Kendal et al, 2017; Lawless et al, 2020, 2022; Moura & Aschemann-Witzel, 2021; Schuman et al, 2019; Vale et al, 2019; Wallace et al, 2018), while 56.6% ( n = 30) reported that their study had not been reviewed (Ari & Mari, 2021; Baptista et al, 2021; Bayen et al, 2021; Bîră et al, 2020; Björkman & Salzmann-Erikson, 2018; Botelle & Willott, 2020; Cuomo et al, 2020; Eriksson et al, 2014; Eriksson & Salzmann-Erikson, 2013, 2016b, 2018; Gatrell, 2019; Holmgren et al, 2018; Johansson & Andreasson, 2017; Keeling et al, 2015; Liang & Scammon, 2011; Manning Hutson et al, 2022; Nemec et al, 2018; Nimrod, 2011; Numer et al, 2022; Poppi, 2021; Salzmann-Erikson, 2016, 2017; Salzmann-Erikson & Eriksson, 2011; Saxena et al, 2021; Song, 2020; Strand, 2022, p. 202; Strand & Gustafsson, 2020; Thunborg & Salzmann-Erikson, 2017; Van Hout & Hearne, 2014); four articles reported that they had applied to an ethics review board (ERB) but had been deemed exempt because their work was not considered human subjects research (De Gagne et al, 2021; Giles et al, 2015; …”

Socially friendly business strategy and social sustainability performance: roles of spiritual capital and social management process

“…Social capital can be created and strengthened by spiritual capital, particularly when it comes to fostering normative conduct that fosters collaborative networks for long-term economic sustainability. Jauhari and Sanjeev (2010) and Saxena et al (2021) have confirmed in the context of business continuity, spiritual capital and social management processes can help to foster the positive relationships required to expand the business scale. Unfortunately, because the idea of spiritual capital and the social management process is rarely articulated, there is little study on the connection between socially friendly business strategy and social sustainability performance.…”

“…The phrase “social management process” refers to the business’s strategic initiatives to implement the management process to achieve the three sustainability pillars, particularly on the social front. Additionally, businesses with substantial social capital and social management practices demonstrate a solid commitment to being socially responsible and positively impacting both sustainable development and community welfare (Saxena et al , 2021).…”