Knowledge sharing motives and value co-creation behavior of the consumers in physiotherapy services: a cross-cultural study

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the role of consumers’ (patients) motives in knowledge sharing and value co-creation with the service provider in the context of physiotherapy services. Design/methodology/approach The authors used partial least squares structural equation modeling for the analysis of the physiotherapy services users’ data from Germany and Pakistan. Findings The results show that in both consumer groups, individualizing, empowering and development motives are common influences on the willingness to share knowledge leading to value co-creation. However, the relating, ethical and concerted motives show varying influences in the data set. Research limitations/implications A key research implication relates to specifying the link between consumer knowledge sharing and value creation and the role of cultural factors in this context. It is one of the first studies to undertake a comparative analysis in this specific context by highlighting the changing role of consumers from collective and individualistic societies, in influencing service provision through participation in the service exchange. Practical implications For the managerial audience, this paper highlights the importance of being sensitive to cultural elements as they tend to influence personal knowledge sharing by the consumer, especially in the well-being sector, which ultimately influences the value co-creation. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current paper is one of the first studies focusing on the knowledge sharing motives of consumers in the specific context of physiotherapy services leading to value co-creation. Moreover, specific focus on individual consumer’s motives and their role in comparative, cross-cultural settings, adds further value to the contribution of this study.

Co-creating value and well-being experiences in physiotherapy services

“…Bhatti et al ’s (2021) study is also noteworthy as it is the first study highlighting that the country’s context might influence the value of cocreation in well-being. The authors encourage future studies in other countries.…”

Context of knowledge and network capabilities: a framework for achieving innovation strategies for SMEs in Bandung City

“…The capacity of a business to acquire and distribute knowledge is very important to the success and competitiveness of an organization (Bhatti, 2020). In this regard, organizational relationships, business networks, and connections has a significant role for firms in acquiring knowledge in order to compete.…”

Effectual entrepreneurship, ethics and suboptimal service designs

“…It is widely recognized that professional services are usually delivered by individual experts with intensive knowledge and experience (Trischler et al , 2019; Von Nordenflycht, 2010). Scholars view services to be experiential in nature and process-based (Dotzel et al , 2013; Storey et al , 2016), wherein services are interdependent, interactive and co-produced by interpersonal interactions between the professionals and the stakeholders, such as clients (Bhatti et al , 2021; Trischler et al , 2019).…”

“…Customer co-creation literature argues that by actively engaging clients, service providers can resolve issues of user needs that are hard to articulate (Bhatti et al , 2021; Trischler et al , 2018; Witell et al , 2011). The engagement of clients and users is argued to be beneficial for service innovation (Mahr et al , 2014; Trischler et al , 2018) as the process of co-creation supports innovative solutions (Witell et al , 2011).…”

“…Co-creation is human-centered (Trischler et al , 2018) and fits with the governing logic that the service design can only be meaningful to the clients and users when it has “value in use” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and “value in context” (Vargo, 2008). Therefore, the value proposition is often contextually specific and decided by the clients or end-users (Bhatti et al , 2021; Trischler et al , 2018). While the value of co-creation and stakeholder engagement is undeniable, what remains unanswered is how this engagement is achieved under the condition of effectual entrepreneurship with limited means and resources (Malsch and Guieu, 2019) and in a context characterized by both knowledge and power asymmetries.…”