Project Final Print

CONSUMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS PRIVATELY

PRACTICING MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

PROJECT WORK (BUS 498)

SUPERVISED BY:
Md. Farhan Faruqui
Asst. Professor
Department of Business Administration
East West University
Prepared By :
Suchita Roy choudhury (2012-1-10-153)
Department Of Business Administration

Letter of Transmittal
16 May, 2016
Mr. Farhan Faruqui
Assistant Professor
Department of Business administration
Subject: Submission of Project paper on “Consumer Perceptions towards

Privately Practicing Medical Practitioners”.
Sir,
I am going to submit you the project paper on the Consumers perception towards
privately practicing medical practitioners. While making the report I came across many
hurdles and pleasant experiences. But the valuable experiences I have gained during
the period will undoubtedly benefit me in the years ahead. This research gave me an
opportunity to apply my theoretical expertise regarding marketing research, consumer
behavior, and sharpen my views, ideas and bridge them with the practical experience,
which will definitely be a good head start for my future professional career.
I collected data form a sample size of 200 random people by facing lots of problems.
So, I would like to apologize for any kind of mistakes which may be found in this
research paper.
Sincerely yours,
Suchita Roy Choudhury
ID: 2012-1-10-153
Department Of Business Administration
Page | 2
Acknowledgement:
After the Almighty, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Farhan Faruqui, my Project

supervisor- for his cordial co-operation and spending valuable time for this research
paper. My heartily gratitude for all of them too who didn’t reject a single help-request of
mine on this run so far. I am also thankful to those who have helped me by valuable
time and filling up the questionnaire. To prepare this research report, I am grateful to a
large sum of people who helped us with their insights, advice and suggestions that have
helped to improve my observation, communication & the findings; more precisely to
made it even more valuable and user friendly. Thanks to all of them who were related
with me in this run for their advice, time, and assistance.
Page | 3
Abstract:
This report is intended towards figuring out the consumers’ perception towards
privately practicing medical practitioners in Bangladesh. I have surveyed a number of
people and tried different statistical tools to find out how different variables influence
consumers’ perception towards privately practicing medical practitioners. Private health
clinics have been a trending business in Bangladesh recently in different metropolitan
cities like Dhaka, Sylhet and Chittagong, Khulna etc. In this situation I think my report
will be helpful to identify the factors which influence consumers’ perception towards
privately practicing medical practitioners in Bangladesh and to know how it really works.
The interaction between patients and healthcare providers is critical as it influences

patients’ satisfaction. This encounter provides the patient with the opportunity to assess
and evaluate service quality and conversely it offers the provider an opportunity to
manage patients’ perceptions and service quality. This study was conducted to assess
patients’ satisfaction using SERVQUAL model as a main requirement of my project work.
The SERVQUAL instrument was adapted and modified to capture the relevant data. A
total of 187 responses were taken. Data were analysed using SPSS (version 17.0) for
descriptive statistics and patients’ satisfactions. The dimensions were Tangibility,
Reliability, Assurance, Empathy and Responsiveness on which basis the study was
conducted to assess the perception towards privately practicing medical practitioners.
In the study, Reliability, Responsive, Assurance and Empathy dimensions scored
positive which affirms patients’ impression about the service whereas Tangibility scored
negative.
Page | 4
Table of Content
1.0 Background of the study 6

2.0 Problem Definition 7
3.0 Approach to the problem 8
4.0 Research question & Hypothesis 9
5.0 research design 10
6.0 Data collection 12
7.0 Data analysis and findings 12
7.1 Data reliability 12
7.2 Descriptive analysis 12
7.3 Correlation analysis 13
7.4 Crosstabs 14
7.5 Hypothesis testing 15
7.6 Regression analysis 17
8.0 Recommendation 18
9.0 Limitation and future research 18
10.0 Conclusion 19
11.0 Reference 20
12.0 Appendix 21
13.0 Questionnaire 30
Page | 5
1.0 Background of the Study
Healthcare industry of Bangladesh is heavily decentralized and good quality health

service is only available to the high income group. If someone walks into a public
medical college, the picture will be evident. The services are very scarce and people
with even low income wants to avoid it, unless it is a emergency. General people tend
to visit their nearby doctor who is probably practicing out of a small medicine
dispensary. These private practicing doctors are the first line of service that the general
people avails. However, the quality of the practitioner and the level service one might
get, depends broadly on the location where the patient is, economic power, and the
experience of the individual practitioner.
A huge number of doctors graduating each year from several private and public
medical colleges. These newly graduated doctors joins medical colleges for further
studies and practicing. These young professionals gets appointed to different healthcare
institutions across the country. People’s perceptions towards these young doctors is an
important factor of this study.
The number of private healthcare institutions are increasing in Bangladesh. This

is mainly focused in Dhaka and to some extent in Chittagong and Sylhet. These are big
private hospitals where the patients get get outdoor doctor appointment and see an
specialist for their specific health problems. However, these private hospitals are often
targeting the high income group. The amount of money they cost (including the cost of
diagnosis) is too high of the low and medium income group. For a person who has a
very limited income, will possible do his/her best to avoid these private hospital in case
of medical needs. This in particular is not a very good sign, because people in big cities
tend to avoid doctors unless it is an emergency in order to avoid huge expenses.
Page | 6
Another interesting point of this research is that, people are becoming more health
concerned day by day. This is mainly attributed to the digital media where people are
made aware of different health condition and the impact of lifestyle choices that they
make.
Patients want to avoid the risk of wrong treatment do often visit specialist in a
private hospital. This obviously cost a lot of money and only the economically solvent
people can afford to do this. The poor often doesn’t have a chose and bound to go to
the public hospitals. However, those who can afford, wants to avoid the risk of getting
badly treated and end up spending more money.
2.0 Literature Review
Healthcare is an important issue for Bangladesh. The healthcare system in this country
is very decentralized. People’s purchasing power is key factor in determining the quality
of healthcare service one will get when someone needs medical care. There are a
number of critical issues relating to healthcare services that highlight the need to assess
and measure patients’ satisfactions and improve them. Assessing and measuring
patient’s satisfaction and perceived service quality is an important issue for a healthcare
provider to understand what is cherished by patients, and to know where, when and
how service can be altered or possible improvement can be made as well as how the
scarce resources of the healthcare service would be distributed. As we know the private
medical sector is highly expensive, it targets only the peak of the iceberg as far as the
total population of Bangladesh goes. The services provided by the public sector
inadequate and can’t cater to the needs of this massive population from a quality
standpoint. The patients often don’t get attention from the healthcare practitioner. This
Page | 7
is where private practicing medical practitioner comes into the picture. This research
tries to find out people’s perception towards private practicing medical practitioners
based on several factors such as; social, economic, demographic, gender and age
group.
According to the journalService Quality in Health Care Centres: An Empirical Study,

“Health care centers realize the importance of service quality as a measure to improve
their competitive position. Consumer’s perceptions about the health care services play
an important role when choosing a hospital”.
This literature review suggests a study for the existence of research gap in the
perception towards private practicing medical practitioners in Bangladesh. To fill the
research gap, a service quality perception study was undertaken where individuals
where asked to fill out questions regarding their perceptions towards their own health,
how often they visit a doctor, their economic standpoint and perception towards the
medical practitioner they visit in case of illness.
3.0 Problem Definition
3.1 Management Decision problem:
Should a new private health clinic be launched?
3.2 Marketing Research Problems
How do patient choose their preferred healthcare providers?
3.3 Specific Market Research Problem
Page | 8
1. To identify the factors dominating patients decision towards selecting a private
Vs public healthcare practitioner.
2. To identify demographic affecting the preference towards private medical
practitioners.
3. Finding out the variance between the perceived quality of private and public
healthcare providers.
Page | 9
4.0 Approach to the problem:
Graphical Model:
The proposed graphical model is given below:
Providing
preciselyscheduledser Reliability
Re
vice J1, Pg.20,21; J2, Pg.5
Waiting time of the service
Keeping accurate records
Dependable&sencere staffs
Satisfaction
Maintaining smooth flow of patients (Perception of

consumers
Receiving prompt service Responsiveness towards privately
and response upon request J1, Pg.20,21;J2, Pg.5 practicing medical
practitioners)
Prompt willingness to help
Trustworthy
Security
Assurance BEHAVIORAL
Courteous J1, Pg.20,21; J2, Pg.5 COMPONENT
Focused concentration
Convenient operating hours

Loyalty
Personal Attention Empathy (Consumer Preference)
J1, Pg.20,21;J2, Pg.5
Feeling the need
Patients’ best interest
Figure 1: Graphical Model
Page | 10
5.0 Research Questions & Hypothesis:
RQ1: Does Reliability influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

medical practitioners?
H01: Reliability does not influence consumer perception.
Ha1: Reliability influences consumer perception.
RQ2: Does Responsiveness influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H02: Responsiveness does not influence consumer perception.
Ha2: Responsiveness influences consumer perception.
RQ3: Does Assurance influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H03: Assurance does not influence consumer perception.
Ha3Assurance influences consumer perception.
RQ4: Does Empathy influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H04: Empathy does not influence consumer perception.
Ha4: Empathy influences consumer perception.
RQ5: Does Demographical profile of consumers influence consumer perception toward

privately practicing medical practitioners?
H05: Demographical profile does not influence consumer perception.
Ha5: Demographical profile influences consumer perception.
Page | 11
RQ6: Does psychological profile of consumers influence consumer perception toward
privately practicing medical practitioners?
H06: Psychological profile does not influence consumer perception.
Ha6: Psychological profile influences consumer perception.
RQ7: Does Perception create consumer preference towards privately practicing medical
practitioners?
H07: Perception does not create consumer preference.
Ha7: Perception creates consumer preference.
RQ8: Does Preference create purchase decision towards privately practicing medical
practitioners?
H08: Consumer preference does not create purchase decision towards privately
practicing medical practitioners
Ha8: Consumer preference create purchase decision towards privately practicing

medical practitioners.
6.0 Research Design:
A research design is a framework or blueprint for conducting the marketing research

project.
Types of design:
The types of design that I will use in this research are:
• Exploratory research and
• Descriptive research design
Page | 12
1. Exploratory research: In order to find the factors shaping the perception of
consumers towards private medical practitioners I will be using following methods.
Interview of industrial experts: In order to get a rough insight on the topic, it is always
a good idea to go for an interview with one or two industry experts. In my case I have
decided to talk to a very well known Cardiologist (Dr. Sajal Banerjie, Dean Of Cardiology
Department, BSMMU) who attends patients both at public and private medical
institutions. He has a very good knowledge on the patient’s perception towards both
these private and public medical service institiouns.
Secondary data anaysis: I followed three international journals where we got 5

major variables and those are Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and
Empathy. The first one is, “Patients’ and personnel’s perceptions of service quality and
patient satisfaction in nuclear medicine”- by Stefanie De Man, Paul Gemmel, Peter
Vlerick, Peter Van Rijk, Rudi Dierckx. The second one is, “Patient perceptions of service
quality in group versus solo practice clinics” – by HERNG-CHING LIN, SUDHA
XIRASAGAR AND JAMES N. LADITKA. And the third one is, “Service Quality in Health
Care Centres: An Empirical Study” – by Dr. Sumathi Kumaraswamy.
Qualitative research:
For the Qualitative research I have sat with a bunch of people who have somewhat
experience of choosing their own physicians at some point of their life. And I have
observed their opinions and will try to get an insight about their perception about
private medical practitioners.
2. Descriptive Research:
Page | 13
I will undertake a survey to quantify the factors influencing the perception of people
towards privately practicing medical practitioners. I will examine the profile of the target
audiences and will try to draw a conclusion on what factors shape the perception of
people towards private medical practitioners.
3. Data Obtain: A total of 200 respondents will be collected. A total of 200

questionnaires will be subsequently used for data analysis. Primary data needs to be
obtained through surveys using structured questionnaire & interviews. So I will collect
primary data from my 200 respondents, I will also talk with the industry specialist.
Secondary data is obtained from previous researches regarding effectiveness of using
websites as well as articles. I have collected secondary data from different research
papers mentioned above.
4. Sample area and size:
I will be taking about 200 respondents for my survey. In the survey questionnaire, I will
be using Likert Scale. Sampling technique is the choice of a subset of the people from
among a population to estimate characteristics of the entire population. I will be
choosing cluster sampling as the target market would be the people who have some
idea about the relevant topic.
5. Data Analysis Method:
Data will be analyzed by using SPSS 20. SPSS is a computer program for estimating the
unknown coefficients within a system of structural equations. Multiple Regressions will
be used as a statistical test to determine the degree of relationship between the
variables involved in this study.
Page | 14
6.0 Data Collection:
A total of 200 were collected via questionnaire surveys. The removal of outliners and
records with missing values left 187 responses. A total of 187 questionnaires were
subsequently use for data analysis. So the response rate was 93.5%.
7.0 Data Analysis and findings
In this section we are going to demonstrate the data analysis and major findings of our
research.
7.1 Data Reliability:
The data were first tested using Cronbach’s alpha to assess reliability. Conceptually,
reliability is defined as the degree to which measures are free from error and therefore
yield consistent results (Cronbach 1951; Peter 1979). The overall Cronbach’s alphas of
all variables are .917 which is more than suitable than the suggested value of .70.
Results of the reliability test show that the data collected from the survey are reliable
and suitable for further analysis (Appendix A). In this certain research to measure the
dependent and independent variable we have used 21 items. These 21 items are
developed for measuring independent variable. The Cronbach’s Alpha for variables
such as Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy are 0.637,
0.701 and 0.800, .838 and .832 respectively. That means all the variables are more
than suitable for further analysis as they are above the suggested value of .70
Cronbach’s alphas except for the Tangibility variable as it is below the suggested value
which is .637 and should be eliminated from the graphical model and further analysis.
Reliability Statistics
Page | 15
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.917 21
7.2 Descriptive Analysis
187 respondents were surveyed out of them 143 were male and 44 were female.
(Appendix – B (Table-5)). Maximum 84% of the respondents belong to the age group
of 21-30 years and the rest 12.3%, 3.7% respectively belong to the age group of 31-40
and below 20. (Appendix – B (Table 4)). 47.6% and 34.8% respondents’ are graduate
and undergraduate respectively whereas only 16.6% respondents’ are
postgraduate/masters/mba (Appendix – B (Table7)). Major parts of the respondents are
students but respondents who are private employee and government employee are also
accounted as 33.3% and 12.3% respectively. Only 8.6% of them are doing business.
(Appendix – B (table 8)). Average monthly income of 23.0% respondents ranges from
Tk <30000, 21.9% of them have an average income ranging between 50000-70000,
15.5% respondents having an average monthly income of 1.00.000+, only 10.22%
them are having an income of 70000-100000. (Appendix – B (Table 9)). Majority of the
respondents (87.7%) were unmarried, 11.8% of them were married and only .5% were
separated. (Appendix – B (Table 5)).
7.3 Correlation Analysis:
1. The correlation between Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy is

weakly related because the correlation is below 0.4.
Page | 16
2. The correlation between Reliability with Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy
is also weakly related because the correlation is .000.
3. The correlation between Responsiveness with Reliability, Assurance and Empathy

is weakly related because all the values are .000
4. The correlation between Assurance with Reliability, Responsiveness and Empathy

is again weakly related because the value is.000.
5. The correlation between Empathy with Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance is

once again weakly related because all the correlation values are .000
So, it can be concluded that all the variables are weakly correlated.
7.4 Crosstabs:
Age * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation:
From the cross Tabulation in Appendix G we find that, Most of the people (65.1%) from
the age group 21-30 visits the private practitioners the most. From our survey we have
found 146 people from the 187 respondents said that they visits private doctors and
122 of them belong to the age group of 21-30 among them.
Average monthly income * Do you visit private medical practitioner

Crosstabulation:
From the cross Tabulation in Appendix G we find that, Most of the people who visits the
private medical practitioners have average monthly income of BDT, 30000-50000. 23%
of the group having a average monthly income 30000-50000 BDT regularly visit Private
doctors.
Page | 17
Marital Status * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical
purposes Crosstabulation:
From the cross Tabulation in Appendix G we find that, almost 69% of unmarried people
will prefer private medical practitioners over private medical practitioners. Only 19% of
the unmarried people will chose public medical doctors over private.
7.5 Hypothesis:
I am taking hypothesis accepted if p value is below 0.05. If the p-value is going up from
0.05 I am taking that as negative on rejected.
P-value>0.05= Rejected
P-value<0.05= Accepted
Hypothesis: 1
Ha1: Reliability influences consumer perception
Accepted. P-Value is (.000). This is shown in the appendix D.
Hypothesis: 2
Ha2: Responsiveness influences consumer perception.
Hypothesis: 3
Ha3: Assurance influences consumer perception.
Hypothesis: 4
Page | 18
Ha4: Empathy influences consumer perception.
Hypothesis: 9
Ha9: Consumer preference creates buying decision.
Accepted. P-value is (.000). This is shown in the appendix D.
ONE SAMPLE T-TEST
According to one sample T test the t value is 39.734 (Appendix E). The
significance of P here is .000 which is smaller than 0.05. So it can be concluded that
most of the people prefer privately practicing medical Practitioners.
According to one sample T test the t value is 32.664 (Appendix E). The
significance of P here is .000 as well which is smaller than 0.05. So most of the
respondents recommend others to go for privately practicing medical practitioners.
INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST
The significance here is .230 (Appendix E) is not less than .05. So there are a difference
between the frequency of purchase between males and females.
PAIRED TEST
There is a weak correlation between Reliability and preference (.039). Similarly weak
correlation between Responsiveness, and Empathy with Preference (.040, .051). But
Assurance and preference has weak negative correlation (-.042).
7.6 Regression:
Page | 19
Within the scope of the research examined, a regression analysis has been carried out
in order to determine the factors affecting preference towards privately practicing
medical practitioners in Bangladesh. A linier regression analysis has been carried out by
identifying positive preference of consumer that communicates more successfully to
consumer’s buying decision. (Appendix D)
Regression Equation: Y= α+ βx
Here, Y = Dependent Variable (preference), α = Intercept, β = coefficient of

independent variable, x = Independent variable (factors influencing preference towards
privately practicing medical practitioners)
Model summary:
The value of R square (.026) and R (.161) predicting a strong relationship between the
set of independent variable and the dependent variable with the standard error of 56.25
percent. Adjusted R square is 0.005 which is close to R square.
That means the purchase intention of privately practicing medical practitioners meal is
26.0% which influenced by reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The rest
74% is influenced by some other factors that we have not considered in our research.
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .161a .026 .005 .5625
ANOVA Test:
Page | 20
The F value of the test for the data is 1.214. The P-value associated with this F value is
very small i.e. 0.306 which is not less than alpha value 0.05.
This shows there is less significant impact of independent variables on the dependent
variable and the model applied is not adequate enough in predicting dependent
variable.
COEFFICIENTS:
• If Reliability, Responsiveness and Empathy increases by 1 unit (100%) the

preference of private medical practitioners increases up to .060 unit (06.0%), .098 unit
(9.8%) and .157 unit (15.7%) respectively (Appendix F).
• If the variables such as Assurance is increased by 1 unit (100%) then preference

decreases by 0.277 unit (27.7%) respectively (Table 2, Appendix F).
COLLINEARITY STATISTICS
VIF or variance inflation factor is the measure by which the influence of independent
variables on one another can be measured. The VIF values are considered to be
tolerable if they are below 10. And the VIF values of the independent variables are in
tolerable level (Appendix F).
8.0 Recommendation:
Page | 21
This study has produced great understanding of the variables that appear to be most
responsible in determining some factors that are mostly affect the perception towards
privately practicing medical practitioners. From a practical stand point, results of the
study could provide marketers with broader insight concerning the potential benefits
and risks associated with using perceived qualities.
Here we are recommending some strategy depending on the result of the study.
• I have found that Reliability is one of the most important factors since it’s
associated with many things directly as mentioned in the study and indirectly with
loyalty and other buying factors in this regard.
• Although Tangibility doesn’t seem to have much influence but I was told by the
industry expert that it is of equal importance.
• Assurance has to be very much appreciated because customer go to private

medical doctors to be double assured and avoid the risk of wrong treatment.
9.0 Limitations and future research:
The present study may also have the traditional limitations associated with survey
research such as selection error, measurement error, non- response error.
Secondly, another limitation was not being able to produce a questionnaire where all
the variables could be strongly or moderately correlated with each other. In my report
the variables were mostly weakly correlated which doesn’t produce much of a
substantial report.
Page | 22
Thirdly, the graphical model firstly had Tangibility as a major variable in it but later on
with the survey results, I have found that Tangibility is not a reliable factor to be
considered.
Fourthly, I din’t get much of any interesting issue in the cross tab calculation which din’t
allow me to have particularly specific or important factor to dig into.
Since this study was limited to 200 respondents and respondents were mostly from
Dhaka city, findings can only be used as a guide for further research into this area. The
purpose of the next stage in the research is to extend it to large sample.
10.0 Conclusion:
This study aims to specify the factors affecting consumers’ perception towards privately
practicing medical practitioners in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is moving forward with its
economic growth day by day. In this situation people are becoming capable of affording
private doctors for medical purpose. The demand seems to be high when most of the
people answer optimistically about privately practicing medical practitioners. Since, the
affordability is increasing- if the private medical service providers improve their overall
services, it will influence people positively in a very short time. We have been seen that
people are already having almost a good perception towards the private medical clinics
and their services. We hope that the marketers will realize the importance of overall
service improvements that will ensure the purchase intention of the people and be
successful in promoting the ultimate private medical service providers in the country.
11.0 References:
 (Patients’ and personnel’s perceptions of service quality and patient satisfaction

in nuclear medicine)- By Stefanie De Man, Paul Gemmel, Peter Vlerick, Peter Van
Rijk, Rudi Dierck)-- FACULTEIT ECONOMIEEN BEDRIJFSKUNDE,
HOVENIERSBERG 24-B-9000 GENT
Page | 23
 (Patient perceptions of service quality in group versus solo practice clinics)- By
HERNG-CHING LIN, SUDHA XIRASAGAR AND JAMES N. LADITKA- International
Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004; Volume 16, Number 6: pp. 437–445
 (Service Quality in Health Care Centres: An Empirical Study) By Dr. Sumathi
Kumaraswamy- International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No.
16 [Special Issue – August 2012]
 (Assessing Patient’s Satisfaction Using SERVQUAL Model: A Case of Sunyani
Regional Hospital, Ghana)- By Augustine Awuah Peprah, Bede Akorige Atarah-
International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -4, No.-2,
February, 2014
Page | 24
12.0 Appendix:
12.1 Questionnaire
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear respondent, I am a student of Department of Business administration of East West
University. We are conducting a research required for Project(BUS498) to identify
“Perception of consumers towards privately practicing medical practitioner”. Please spare
some time to answer the following questions. The information provided by you will be purely
used for research purpose and will be kept strictly confidential.
1. Age:
a) 15-21 b) 22-29 c) 30-40 d) 40-45 e)46+
1.1. Gender
a) Male b) Female
2. Marital status:
a) Unmarried b) Married c) Separated d) Widowed e) Others…………………….
3. Educational qualifications:
a) SSC b) HSC c) Undergraduate (Bachelors/Honors) d) Graduate (Masters)
e) Post graduate (Ph.D.)
4. Occupation:
a) Student b) Private service holder c) Public service holder d) Business
e) others (please specify):……………………………..
5. Monthly family income (in BDT) :

a) <30,000 b) 30,000-50,000 c)50,000-70,000 d)70,000-1,00,000 e)1,00,000+
6. What do you do in your leisure time?

a) Watch television b) Browseinternet c) Listen to radio
d)Read newspapers and magazines e) Hangout with friends f) Travel
7.How frequently do you think about your health a day?

a) Noteveryday b) 1-3 times c) 4-5 times d) More than 5 times
8.How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year?

a)Not every yearb) 1-3 times c) 4-5 times d) More than 5 times
Page | 25
9. Do you visit private medical practitioner?
a) Yes b) No
10. If you visit private medical practitioner where would you go?
a) Private medical colleges and clinics b) Private practice chambersc) Others (please
specify)…………………………….
11. Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical purposes?
a) Yes b) No
Please put a tick mark (√)in the box representing the most appropriate number to represent the level of
agreement for each statement based on private medical doctors. (1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=
neutral, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree)
Q. Statement Ref Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree (2) (3) (4) Agree
(1) (5)
1 Up to date equipments make me T1
feel that I am in a good place.
2 Appropriate facilities are a must T2
for my preference.
3 All the facilities provided T3
appeal me to get the service.
4 Appearance of all the staffs and T4
the doctor attract me.
5 Scheduled service is reliable to Rl1
me.
6 I do not like waiting too much Rl2
for visiting a doctor.
7 Keeping records helps me to Rl3
rely on the doctor.
8 Sincere staffs make me feel Rl4
cozy in the service point.
9 Dependable staffs are much Rl4
more reliable.
10 Smooth flow in visiting patients Rs1
makes the doctor responsive.
11 When I visit a doctor I want Rs2
prompt response.
12 I want the doctor to consider Rs2
every aspect I request.
13 The doctor must be willing and Rs3
more involving.
14 Trustworthy physicians can A1
assure me of quality.
15 Making me feel secured A2
increases assurance.
Page | 26
16 I expect courtesy from the staffs A3
to feel assured.
17 When the doctor and the staffs A4
focus on my problem it feels
good.
18 I feel empathy when their E1
working hour matches my
convenience
19 Personal care is what I always E2
appreciate from a physician.
20 I feel amazed when the staffs E3
feel my needs.
21 It is great when the doctor and E4
the staffs focus on the Patients
best interest.
22. Which one do you prefer?
1. Private medical doctors

2. Public medical doctors
23. When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner?
1. Don't have time to wait for a long time

2. When the sickness doesn't seem to be very serious
3. When the private medical practitioner or the hospital has very well reputation.
24. How frequently do you visit a private medical practitioner?
1. Once in every 3 months

2. Once in every six months
3. Once in a year
4. Not at all
25. Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical practitioners/doctors?
1. Definitely will recommend

2. Probably will recommend
3. May or may not recommend
4. Probably will not recommend
5. Definitely will not recommend
Page | 27
12.2 Spss outputs
Appendix A
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=T1 T2 T3 T4 RL1 RL2 RL3 RL4 RL5 RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 A1 A2 A3 A4 E1 E2 E3 E4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 12-May-2016 03:22:14
Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Disha\Desktop\worked on

output.sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 187

File
Matrix Input
Page | 28
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with

valid data for all variables in the
procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=T1 T2 T3 T4 RL1 RL2

RL3 RL4 RL5 RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 A1 A2
A3 A4 E1 E2 E3 E4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 0:00:00.015
Elapsed Time 0:00:00.020
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Disha\Desktop\worked on output.sav
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N %
Page | 29
Cases Valid 187 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.917 21
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
Up to date equipment make 80.61 130.227 .232 .922

me feel that I am in a good
place.
Appropriate facilities are a 80.18 125.114 .559 .913

must for my preference.
All the facilities provided 80.67 126.760 .479 .915

Page | 30
Appearance of all the staffs 80.86 127.744 .385 .917
and doctor attract me.
Scheduled Service is reliable 80.49 125.370 .487 .915

to me.
I do not like waiting too much 80.03 128.289 .365 .918

keeping records help me to 80.19 125.146 .589 .913

rely on the doctor.
Sincere staffs make me feel 80.38 124.215 .602 .912

Dependable staffs are much 80.49 125.327 .501 .915

more reliable.
Smooth flow in visiting 80.38 123.925 .635 .912

patients makes the doctor
responsive.
When I visit a doctor I want 80.24 124.676 .625 .912

prompt response.
I want the doctor to consider 80.17 123.236 .653 .911

The doctor must be willing 80.07 123.790 .685 .911

and more involving.
Trustworthy physicians can 80.15 124.139 .708 .911

Making me feel secured 80.25 123.993 .656 .911

I accept courtesy from the 80.52 122.681 .644 .911

staffs to feel assured.
Page | 31
When the doctors and staffs 79.89 124.606 .733 .910
focus on my problem, it feels
good.
I feel empathy when their 80.33 124.253 .668 .911

convenience.
Personal care is what I 80.36 125.177 .540 .914

always appreciate from a
physician.
I feel amazed when the staffs 80.27 124.960 .612 .912

feel my needs.
It is great when the doctor 80.00 124.441 .710 .911

and the staffs focus on the
patients best interest.
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=T1 T2 T3 T4 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments
Page | 32
output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Matrix Input
as missing.

procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=T1 T2 T3 T4
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Page | 33
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.637 4
Page | 34
Cronbach's
Up to date equipment make 11.27 4.694 .317 .651

me feel that I am in a good
place.
Appropriate facilities are a 10.83 4.515 .546 .480

must for my preference.
All the facilities provided 11.33 4.522 .550 .479

Appearance of all the staffs 11.52 5.133 .300 .648

and doctor attract me.
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=RL1 RL2 RL3 RL4 RL5 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Page | 35
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Matrix Input
as missing.

procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=RL1 RL2 RL3 RL4 RL5
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Page | 36
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.701 5
Cronbach's
Page | 37
Scheduled Service is reliable 16.21 7.327 .380 .686
to me.
I do not like waiting too much 15.75 8.114 .239 .741

keeping records help me to 15.91 7.051 .564 .611

rely on the doctor.
Sincere staffs make me feel 16.10 6.550 .644 .574

Dependable staffs are much 16.21 6.822 .509 .629

more reliable.
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Page | 38
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Matrix Input
as missing.

procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Page | 39
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.800 4
Cronbach's
Smooth flow in visiting 12.50 4.983 .494 .808

patients makes the doctor
responsive.
Page | 40
When I visit a doctor I want 12.36 4.737 .612 .751
prompt response.
I want the doctor to consider 12.29 4.443 .639 .737

The doctor must be willing 12.20 4.471 .720 .699

and more involving.
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=A1 A2 A3 A4 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
Page | 41
File
Matrix Input
as missing.

procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=A1 A2 A3 A4
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Page | 42
N %
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.838 4
Cronbach's
Trustworthy physicians can 12.32 4.574 .746 .764

Making me feel secured 12.42 4.416 .713 .775

Page | 43
I accept courtesy from the 12.70 4.342 .619 .826
staffs to feel assured.
When the doctors and staffs 12.06 5.088 .628 .814

focus on my problem, it feels
good.
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=E1 E2 E3 E4 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliability
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Page | 44
Matrix Input
as missing.

procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=E1 E2 E3 E4
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
N %
Page | 45
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 187 100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.832 4
Cronbach's

convenience.

physician.

feel my needs.
Page | 46
Cronbach's

convenience.

physician.

feel my needs.
It is great when the doctor 12.03 4.897 .655 .792

and the staffs focus on the
patients best interest.
Appendix B
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Age Gender Marital_status Education Occupation Avg.monthly_income

Leisure_time Health_A_day Doctor_in_a_year /PERCENTILES=100.0 /STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE
MEAN MEDIAN MODE /PIECHART PERCENT /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Page | 47
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Age

Gender Marital_status Education
Occupation Avg.monthly_income
Leisure_time Health_A_day
Doctor_in_a_year
/PERCENTILES=100.0
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE
MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/PIECHART PERCENT
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Page | 48
Statistics
Age Gender Marital Status Education Occupation
N Valid 187 187 187 187 187
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.09 1.24 1.13 3.80 1.83
Median 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00
Mode 2 1 1 4 1
Std. Deviation .392 .425 .351 .719 .950
Variance .154 .181 .123 .518 .902
Percentiles 100 3.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.00
Statistics
How frequently
What you like to do you think How frequently
Average monthly do in your leisure about your health do you visit a
income time a day doctor in a year
Page | 49
N Valid 187 187 187 187
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.66 2.82 1.59 1.75
Median 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
Mode 2 2 1 2
Std. Deviation 1.352 1.540 .773 .728
Variance 1.828 2.372 .597 .531
Percentiles 100 5.00 6.00 4.00 4.00
Frequency Table
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Below 20 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
21-30 157 84.0 84.0 87.7
31-40 23 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Page | 50
Gender
Cumulative
Valid Male 143 76.5 76.5 76.5
Female 44 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Marital Status
Cumulative
Valid Unmarried 164 87.7 87.7 87.7
Married 22 11.8 11.8 99.5
Seperated 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Education
Cumulative
Valid HSC 2 1.1 1.1 1.1
Undergraduate 65 34.8 34.8 35.8
Page | 51
Graduate 89 47.6 47.6 83.4
Post Graduate 31 16.6 16.6 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Occupation
Cumulative
Valid Student 86 46.0 46.0 46.0
Private Service Holder 62 33.2 33.2 79.1
Public Service Holder 23 12.3 12.3 91.4
Business 16 8.6 8.6 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Average monthly income
Cumulative
Valid <30000 43 23.0 23.0 23.0
Tk 30000-50000 55 29.4 29.4 52.4
Tk 50000-70000 41 21.9 21.9 74.3
Page | 52
Tk 70000-100000 19 10.2 10.2 84.5
Tk 100000+ 29 15.5 15.5 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
What you like to do in your leisure time
Cumulative
Valid watching tv 17 9.1 9.1 9.1
Browse Internet 114 61.0 61.0 70.1
reading newspaper and 13 7.0 7.0 77.0

magazines
hangout with friends 27 14.4 14.4 91.4
Traveling 16 8.6 8.6 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
How frequently do you think about your health a day
Cumulative
Valid Not everyday 101 54.0 54.0 54.0
1-3 times 69 36.9 36.9 90.9
Page | 53
4-5 times 9 4.8 4.8 95.7
More than 5 times 8 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year
Cumulative
Valid Not every year 74 39.6 39.6 39.6
1-3 times 89 47.6 47.6 87.2
4-5 times 20 10.7 10.7 97.9
More than 5 times 4 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 187 100.0 100.0
Pie Chart
Page | 54
Page | 55
Page | 56
Page | 57
Page | 58
Page | 59
Page | 60
Page | 61
Page | 62
Appendix C
Your trial period for SPSS Statistics will expire in 21 days. GET FILE='C:\Users\Disha\Desktop\worked on
output.sav'. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=Mean_Reliability Mean_Responsiveness Mean_Assurance
Mean_Empathy /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Page | 63
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each pair of variables are

based on all the cases with valid data for
that pair.
Page | 64
Syntax CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=Mean_Reliability
Mean_Responsiveness
Mean_Assurance Mean_Empathy
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Mean of Reliability 4.01 .646 187
Mean of Responsiveness 4.112 .6966 187
Mean of Assurance 4.124 .6968 187
Mean of Empathy 4.088 .6967 187
Page | 65
Correlations
Mean of Mean of
Reliability Responsiveness
Mean of Reliability Pearson Correlation 1 .611**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 187 187
Mean of Responsiveness Pearson Correlation .611** 1
N 187 187
Mean of Assurance Pearson Correlation .608** .772**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 187 187
Mean of Empathy Pearson Correlation .548** .751**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 187 187
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Mean of Mean of
Assurance Empathy
Mean of Reliability Pearson Correlation .608** .548**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Page | 66
N 187 187
Mean of Responsiveness Pearson Correlation .772** .751**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 187 187
Mean of Assurance Pearson Correlation 1 .773**
N 187 187
Mean of Empathy Pearson Correlation .773** 1
N 187 187
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix D
Your trial period for SPSS Statistics will expire in 21 days. GET FILE='C:\Users\Disha\Desktop\worked on
output.sav'. T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Preferrence /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Page | 67
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on

the cases with no missing or out-of-
range data for any variable in the
analysis.
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Preferrence
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Page | 68
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Which one do you prefer? 187 1.45 .499 .036
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Which one do you prefer? 39.734 186 .000 1.449
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
Lower Upper
Which one do you prefer? 1.38 1.52
Page | 69
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Do_u_recommend /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Page | 70
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Do_u_recommend
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Do you recommend others to 187 2.28 .956 .070

chose privately practicing
medical
practitioners/doctors?
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Page | 71
Do you recommend others to 32.664 186 .000 2.283

medical
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Do you recommend others to 2.15 2.42

medical
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Mean_Reliability /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Page | 72
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Mean_Reliability
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Page | 73
Mean of Reliability 187 4.01 .646 .047
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Mean of Reliability 84.874 186 .000 4.009
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of Reliability 3.92 4.10
Page | 74
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Mean_Responsiveness /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Page | 75
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Mean_Responsiveness
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Mean of Responsiveness 187 4.112 .6966 .0509
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Page | 76
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Mean of Responsiveness 80.723 186 .000 4.1123
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of Responsiveness 4.012 4.213
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Mean_Assurance /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Page | 77
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Mean_Assurance
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Page | 78
Mean of Assurance 187 4.124 .6968 .0510
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Mean of Assurance 80.946 186 .000 4.1243
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of Assurance 4.024 4.225
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Mean_Empathy /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Page | 79
T-Test
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Page | 80
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Mean_Empathy
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Mean of Empathy 187 4.088 .6967 .0510
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Page | 81
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Mean of Empathy 80.239 186 .000 4.0882
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of Empathy 3.988 4.189
T-TEST /TESTVAL=0 /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=Mean_preference /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Page | 82
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Mean_preference
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Page | 83
Mean of prefence 187 2.230 .5637 .0412
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Mean of prefence 54.092 186 .000 2.2299
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0

Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of prefence 2.149 2.311
Appendix E
Page | 84
T-TEST GROUPS=Gender(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=How_frequently /CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Page | 85
Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Gender(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=How_frequently
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
How frequently do you visit a Male 143 2.78 .889 .074

private medical practitioner?
Female 44 2.59 1.041 .157
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality

Variances of Means
Page | 86
F Sig. t
How frequently do you visit a Equal variances assumed 3.521 .062 1.204
Equal variances not assumed 1.107
t-test for Equality of Means
df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
How frequently do you visit a Equal variances assumed 185 .230 .192
Equal variances not assumed 63.488 .272 .192
t-test for Equality of Means

Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper
How frequently do you visit a Equal variances assumed .160 -.123 .508
Equal variances not assumed .174 -.155 .539
T-TEST PAIRS=Mean_Reliability Mean_Responsiveness Mean_Assurance Mean_Empathy WITH

Mean_preference Mean_preference Mean_preference M ean_preference (PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS.
Page | 87
T-Test
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

analysis.
Page | 88
Syntax T-TEST PAIRS=Mean_Reliability
Mean_Responsiveness
Mean_Assurance Mean_Empathy WITH
Mean_preference Mean_preference
Mean_preference Mean_preference
(PAIRED)
/CRITERIA=CI(.9500)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS.
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Mean of Reliability 4.01 187 .646 .047
Mean of prefence 2.230 187 .5637 .0412
Pair 2 Mean of Responsiveness 4.112 187 .6966 .0509
Mean of prefence 2.230 187 .5637 .0412
Pair 3 Mean of Assurance 4.124 187 .6968 .0510
Mean of prefence 2.230 187 .5637 .0412
Page | 89
Pair 4 Mean of Empathy 4.088 187 .6967 .0510
Mean of prefence 2.230 187 .5637 .0412
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Mean of Reliability & Mean of 187 .039 .597

prefence
Pair 2 Mean of Responsiveness & 187 .040 .587

Mean of prefence
Pair 3 Mean of Assurance & Mean 187 -.042 .565

of prefence
Pair 4 Mean of Empathy & Mean of 187 .051 .491

prefence
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Mean of Reliability - Mean of 1.7786 .8406 .0615

prefence
Pair 2 Mean of Responsiveness - 1.8824 .8785 .0642

Mean of prefence
Page | 90
Pair 3 Mean of Assurance - Mean of 1.8944 .9146 .0669
prefence
Pair 4 Mean of Empathy - Mean of 1.8583 .8737 .0639

prefence
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences

Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Mean of Reliability - Mean of 1.6573 1.8999

prefence
Pair 2 Mean of Responsiveness - 1.7556 2.0091

Mean of prefence
Pair 3 Mean of Assurance - Mean of 1.7624 2.0263

prefence
Pair 4 Mean of Empathy - Mean of 1.7322 1.9843

prefence
Paired Samples Test
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Mean of Reliability - Mean of 28.934 186 .000

prefence
Page | 91
Pair 2 Mean of Responsiveness - 29.302 186 .000
Mean of prefence
Pair 3 Mean of Assurance - Mean of 28.323 186 .000

prefence
Pair 4 Mean of Empathy - Mean of 29.084 186 .000

prefence
Appendix F
REGRESSION /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL /CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT Mean_preference /METHOD=ENTER Mean_Reliability
Mean_Responsiveness Mean_Assurance Mean_Empathy.
Regression
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Page | 92
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases with no

missing values for any variable used.
Syntax REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R

ANOVA COLLIN TOL
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Mean_preference
/METHOD=ENTER Mean_Reliability
Mean_Responsiveness
Mean_Assurance Mean_Empathy.
Memory Required 3052 bytes
Additional Memory Required 0 bytes

for Residual Plots
Page | 93
Variables Entered/Removed
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Mean of . Enter
Empathy, Mean
of Reliability,
Mean of
Responsiveness,
Mean of
Assurancea
a. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .161a .026 .005 .5625
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean of Empathy, Mean of Reliability, Mean

of Responsiveness, Mean of Assurance
ANOVAb
Page | 94
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.536 4 .384 1.214 .306a
Residual 57.576 182 .316
Total 59.112 186
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean of Empathy, Mean of Reliability, Mean of Responsiveness, Mean

of Assurance
b. Dependent Variable: Mean of prefence
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.094 .291 7.199 .000
Mean of Reliability .053 .084 .060 .629 .530
Mean of Responsiveness .080 .104 .098 .765 .445
Mean of Assurance -.224 .107 -.277 -2.084 .039
Mean of Empathy .127 .101 .157 1.260 .209
a. Dependent Variable: Mean of prefence
Coefficientsa
Model Collinearity Statistics
Page | 95
Tolerance VIF
1 Mean of Reliability .579 1.727
Mean of Responsiveness .324 3.086
Mean of Assurance .304 3.293
Mean of Empathy .343 2.918
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Dimensi
Model on Eigenvalue Condition Index
1 1 4.957 1.000
2 .018 16.536
3 .012 20.449
4 .007 27.144
5 .006 28.573
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model Variance Proportions

Dimensi
Page | 96
on Mean of Mean of Mean of Mean of
(Constant) Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
1 1 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .68 .04 .05 .05 .07
3 .31 .88 .00 .00 .08
4 .01 .06 .80 .00 .52
5 .00 .02 .15 .94 .33
Appendix G
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Age Gender Marital_status Education Occupation Avg.monthly_income BY

Prefer_private_doctors /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Page | 97
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each table are based on all

the cases with valid data in the specified
range(s) for all variables in each table.
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Age Gender Marital_status

Education Occupation
Avg.monthly_income BY
Prefer_private_doctors
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Dimensions Requested 2
Cells Available 174762
Page | 98
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Age * Would you prefer 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

private medical practitioner
for medical purposes?
Gender * Would you prefer 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Marital Status * Would you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

prefer private medical
practitioner for medical
purposes?
Education * Would you prefer 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * Would you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

prefer private medical
practitioner for medical
purposes?
Average monthly income * 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Would you prefer private
medical practitioner for
medical purposes?
Page | 99
Age * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical
purposes? Crosstabulation
% of Total
Would you prefer private medical

practitioner for medical purposes?
Yes No Total
Age Below 20 2.7% 1.1% 3.8%
21-30 68.3% 15.6% 83.9%
31-40 9.7% 2.7% 12.4%
Total 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%
Gender * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical

% of Total

Yes No Total
Gender Male 61.5% 15.0% 76.5%
Female 19.3% 4.3% 23.5%
Total 80.7% 19.3% 100.0%
Page | 100
Marital Status * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical
% of Total

Yes No Total
Marital Status Unmarried 68.4% 19.3% 87.7%
Married 11.8% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 80.7% 19.3% 100.0%
Education * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical

% of Total

Yes No Total
Education HSC 1.1% 1.1%
Undergraduate 27.8% 7.0% 34.8%
Graduate 38.5% 9.1% 47.6%
Post Graduate 13.4% 3.2% 16.6%
Page | 101
Education * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical
% of Total

Yes No Total
Graduate 38.5% 9.1% 47.6%
Total 80.7% 19.3% 100.0%
Occupation * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical purposes?
Crosstabulation
% of Total

Yes No Total
Occupation Student 38.0% 8.0% 46.0%
Private Service Holder 29.4% 3.7% 33.2%
Public Service Holder 9.1% 3.2% 12.3%
Business 4.3% 4.3% 8.6%
Page | 102
Occupation * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical purposes?
Crosstabulation
% of Total

Yes No Total
Business 4.3% 4.3% 8.6%
Total 80.7% 19.3% 100.0%
Average monthly income * Would you prefer private medical practitioner for medical
% of Total

Yes No Total
Average monthly income <30000 16.0% 7.0% 23.0%
Tk 30000-50000 26.2% 3.2% 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 17.1% 4.8% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 9.6% .5% 10.2%
Page | 103
Tk 100000+ 11.8% 3.7% 15.5%
Total 80.7% 19.3% 100.0%

Preferrence /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.
Page | 104
Syntax CROSSTABS

Avg.monthly_income BY Preferrence
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Page | 105
Age * Which one do you 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%
prefer?
Gender * Which one do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

prefer?
Marital Status * Which one do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you prefer?
Education * Which one do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you prefer?
Occupation * Which one do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you prefer?

Which one do you prefer?
Age * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
% of Total
private medical public medical

doctors doctors Total
Age Below 20 3.8% 3.8%
21-30 45.2% 38.7% 83.9%
31-40 6.5% 5.9% 12.4%
Total 55.4% 44.6% 100.0%
Page | 106
Gender * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
% of Total

Gender Male 37.4% 39.0% 76.5%
Female 17.6% 5.9% 23.5%
Total 55.1% 44.9% 100.0%
Marital Status * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
% of Total

Married 6.4% 5.3% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 55.1% 44.9% 100.0%
Education * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
Page | 107
% of Total

Graduate 19.8% 27.8% 47.6%
Total 55.1% 44.9% 100.0%
Occupation * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
% of Total

Business 2.1% 6.4% 8.6%
Total 55.1% 44.9% 100.0%
Page | 108
Average monthly income * Which one do you prefer? Crosstabulation
% of Total

Tk 30000-50000 15.5% 13.9% 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 11.2% 10.7% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 7.5% 2.7% 10.2%
Tk 100000+ 8.0% 7.5% 15.5%
Total 55.1% 44.9% 100.0%

When_do_u_prefer /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Page | 109
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS

When_do_u_prefer
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 110
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * When do you prefer to 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

go to a private medical
practitioner?
Gender * When do you prefer 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

to go to a private medical
practitioner?
Marital Status * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

prefer to go to a private
medical practitioner?
Education * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Page | 111
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * When do you prefer to 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

go to a private medical
practitioner?
Gender * When do you prefer 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

to go to a private medical
practitioner?
Marital Status * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Education * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * When do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%


When do you prefer to go to a
Age * When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total
Page | 112
When do you prefer to go to a private medical
practitioner?
When the private

when the medical
dont have time to sickness doesnt practitioner or the
wait for a long seem to be hospital has very
time serious well reputation. Total
Age Below 20 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% 3.8%
21-30 36.6% 10.2% 37.1% 83.9%
31-40 5.4% 1.1% 5.9% 12.4%
Total 43.0% 12.4% 44.6% 100.0%
Gender * When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner?

Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner?
When the private

when the medical
Gender Male 35.3% 9.6% 31.6% 76.5%
Female 7.5% 2.7% 13.4% 23.5%
Total 42.8% 12.3% 44.9% 100.0%
Page | 113
Marital Status * When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner?
When the private

when the medical
Marital Status Unmarried 38.0% 10.2% 39.6% 87.7%
Married 4.3% 2.1% 5.3% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 42.8% 12.3% 44.9% 100.0%
Education * When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner?
When the private

when the medical
Page | 114
Undergraduate 17.6% 2.1% 15.0% 34.8%
Graduate 18.2% 8.0% 21.4% 47.6%
Post Graduate 7.0% 2.1% 7.5% 16.6%
Total 42.8% 12.3% 44.9% 100.0%
Occupation * When do you prefer to go to a private medical practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner?
When the private

when the medical
Occupation Student 20.9% 5.3% 19.8% 46.0%
Private Service Holder 12.3% 5.9% 15.0% 33.2%
Business 4.3% 1.1% 3.2% 8.6%
Total 42.8% 12.3% 44.9% 100.0%
Page | 115
Average monthly income * When do you prefer to go to a private medical
practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total
When do you prefer to go to a

when the
dont have time to sickness doesnt
wait for a long seem to be
time serious
Average monthly income <30000 11.2% 4.8%
Tk 30000-50000 12.3% 5.3%
Tk 50000-70000 9.1%
Tk 70000-100000 4.8% 2.1%
Tk 100000+ 5.3%
Total 42.8% 12.3%
Average monthly income * When do you prefer to go to a private medical

practitioner? Crosstabulation
% of Total
When do you
prefer to go to a
private medical
practitioner?
Page | 116
When the private
medical
practitioner or the
hospital has very
well reputation. Total
Tk 30000-50000 11.8% 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 12.8% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 3.2% 10.2%
Tk 100000+ 10.2% 15.5%
Total 44.9% 100.0%

Do_u_recommend /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments
Page | 117
output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS

Do_u_recommend
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 118
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Do you recommend 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

others to chose privately
practicing medical
Gender * Do you recommend 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

practicing medical
Marital Status * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

recommend others to chose
privately practicing medical
Education * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Page | 119
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Do you recommend 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

practicing medical
Gender * Do you recommend 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

practicing medical
Marital Status * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Education * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * Do you 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Average monthly income * Do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you recommend others to
medical
Page | 120
Age * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical
practitioners/doctors? Crosstabulation
% of Total
Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical

Definitely will probably will may or may not probably will not
recommend recommend recommend recommend
Age Below 20 2.7% 1.1%
21-30 18.3% 28.5% 31.7% 2.2%
31-40 1.1% 7.0% 3.2% 1.1%
Total 22.0% 36.6% 34.9% 3.2%
Age * Do you recommend others to chose

% of Total
Do you
recommend
others to chose
privately
practicing
medical
practitioners/doct
ors?
Definitely will not

recommend Total
Page | 121
Age Below 20 3.8%
21-30 3.2% 83.9%
31-40 12.4%
Total 3.2% 100.0%
Gender * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical

% of Total

Gender Male 16.0% 26.2% 27.8% 3.2%
Female 6.4% 10.2% 7.0%
Total 22.5% 36.4% 34.8% 3.2%
Gender * Do you recommend others to chose

% of Total
Page | 122
Do you
recommend
others to chose
privately
practicing
medical
practitioners/doct
ors?
Definitely will not

recommend Total
Gender Male 3.2% 76.5%
Female 23.5%
Total 3.2% 100.0%
Marital Status * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical

% of Total

Marital Status Unmarried 20.3% 32.1% 28.9% 3.2%
Married 2.1% 3.7% 5.9%
Seperated .5%
Total 22.5% 36.4% 34.8% 3.2%
Page | 123
Marital Status * Do you recommend others to chose
privately practicing medical practitioners/doctors?
Crosstabulation
% of Total
Do you
recommend
others to chose
privately
practicing
medical
practitioners/doct
ors?
Definitely will not

recommend Total
Marital Status Unmarried 3.2% 87.7%
Married 11.8%
Seperated .5%
Total 3.2% 100.0%
Education * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical practitioners/doctors?

Crosstabulation
% of Total

Page | 124
Education HSC 1.1%
Undergraduate 10.7% 13.9% 8.0% 1.1%
Graduate 9.6% 15.0% 20.9%
Post Graduate 2.1% 6.4% 5.9% 2.1%
Total 22.5% 36.4% 34.8% 3.2%
Education * Do you recommend others to chose privately

practicing medical practitioners/doctors? Crosstabulation
% of Total
Do you
recommend
others to chose
privately
practicing
medical
practitioners/doct
ors?
Definitely will not

recommend Total
Education HSC 1.1%
Undergraduate 1.1% 34.8%
Graduate 2.1% 47.6%
Post Graduate 16.6%
Total 3.2% 100.0%
Page | 125
Occupation * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical practitioners/doctors?
Crosstabulation
% of Total

Public Service Holder 1.6% 3.7% 4.8% 2.1%
Business 1.1% 1.1% 5.3%
Total 22.5% 36.4% 34.8% 3.2%
Occupation * Do you recommend others to chose privately

practicing medical practitioners/doctors? Crosstabulation
% of Total
Do you
recommend
others to chose
privately
practicing
medical
practitioners/doct
ors?
Definitely will not

recommend Total
Occupation Student 1.1% 46.0%
Page | 126
Private Service Holder 1.1% 33.2%
Public Service Holder 12.3%
Business 1.1% 8.6%
Total 3.2% 100.0%
Average monthly income * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical
% of Total
Do you recommend others to chose privately

practicing medical practitioners/doctors?
Definitely will probably will may or may not

recommend recommend recommend
Tk 30000-50000 3.7% 12.3% 11.2%
Tk 50000-70000 7.5% 6.4% 7.0%
Tk 70000-100000 3.7% 4.8% 1.6%
Tk 100000+ 2.1% 6.4% 7.0%
Total 22.5% 36.4% 34.8%
Average monthly income * Do you recommend others to chose privately practicing medical
% of Total
Page | 127
Do you recommend others to chose
probably will not Definitely will not

recommend recommend Total
Tk 30000-50000 2.1% 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 1.1% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 10.2%
Tk 100000+ 15.5%
Total 3.2% 3.2% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Age BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT

ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments
Page | 128
output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Age BY Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 129
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * How frequently do you 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

think about your health a day
Age * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Not everyday 1-3 times 4-5 times times Total
Age Below 20 2.7% 1.1% 3.8%
21-30 45.7% 32.8% 2.7% 2.7% 83.9%
31-40 5.9% 3.2% 2.2% 1.1% 12.4%
Total 54.3% 37.1% 4.8% 3.8% 100.0%
Page | 130
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Gender BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT
ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Page | 131
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Gender BY Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * How frequently do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you think about your health a
day
Page | 132
Gender * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Gender Male 41.2% 27.3% 4.3% 3.7% 76.5%
Female 12.8% 9.6% .5% .5% 23.5%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8% 4.3% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Marital_status BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL

/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Page | 133
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Marital_status BY
Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 134
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Marital Status * How 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

frequently do you think about
your health a day
Marital Status * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Marital Status Unmarried 48.1% 31.6% 4.3% 3.7% 87.7%
Married 5.3% 5.3% .5% .5% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8% 4.3% 100.0%
Page | 135
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Education BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Page | 136
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Education BY Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Education * How frequently 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

do you think about your
health a day
Page | 137
Education * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Undergraduate 22.5% 10.7% .5% 1.1% 34.8%
Graduate 24.6% 18.7% 1.1% 3.2% 47.6%
Post Graduate 7.0% 7.5% 2.1% 16.6%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8% 4.3% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Occupation BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL

/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Page | 138
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Occupation BY
Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 139
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Occupation * How frequently 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

health a day
Occupation * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Private Service Holder 15.0% 12.8% 2.1% 3.2% 33.2%
Business 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 8.6%
Page | 140
Occupation * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Business 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 8.6%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8% 4.3% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Avg.monthly_income BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES

/CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments
Page | 141
output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Avg.monthly_income BY
Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 142
Cases
Valid Missing Total

How frequently do you think
about your health a day
Average monthly income * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
Not everyday 1-3 times 4-5 times
Tk 30000-50000 14.4% 12.8% 2.1%
Tk 50000-70000 12.8% 6.4% .5%
Tk 70000-100000 3.2% 5.9% 1.1%
Tk 100000+ 9.6% 4.3%
Page | 143
Average monthly income * How frequently do you think about your health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
Tk 30000-50000 14.4% 12.8% 2.1%
Tk 50000-70000 12.8% 6.4% .5%
Tk 70000-100000 3.2% 5.9% 1.1%
Tk 100000+ 9.6% 4.3%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8%
Average monthly income * How frequently do you think about your health a
day Crosstabulation
% of Total
How frequently
do you think
about your health
a day
More than 5
times Total
Average monthly income <30000 .5% 23.0%
Tk 30000-50000 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 2.1% 21.9%
Page | 144
Tk 70000-100000 10.2%
Tk 100000+ 1.6% 15.5%
Total 4.3% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Leisure_time BY Health_A_day /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL

/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
Page | 145
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Leisure_time BY
Health_A_day
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Page | 146
What you like to do in your 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

leisure time * How frequently
health a day
What you like to do in your leisure time * How frequently do you think about your health a day
Crosstabulation
% of Total
What you like to do in your watching tv 4.8% 4.3%

leisure time
Browse Internet 26.7% 26.2% 4.8%
reading newspaper and 5.9% 1.1%

magazines
hangout with friends 11.2% 3.2%
Traveling 5.3% 2.1%
Total 54.0% 36.9% 4.8%
What you like to do in your leisure time * How frequently do you think about your
health a day Crosstabulation
% of Total
Page | 147
How frequently
do you think
about your health
a day
More than 5
times Total
What you like to do in your watching tv 9.1%

leisure time
Browse Internet 3.2% 61.0%
reading newspaper and 7.0%

magazines
hangout with friends 14.4%
Traveling 1.1% 8.6%
Total 4.3% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Age BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT

ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Page | 148
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Age BY Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 149
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * How frequently do you 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

visit a doctor in a year
Age * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Not every year 1-3 times 4-5 times times Total
Age Below 20 1.1% 2.7% 3.8%
21-30 34.9% 39.8% 8.1% 1.1% 83.9%
31-40 3.8% 4.8% 2.7% 1.1% 12.4%
Total 39.8% 47.3% 10.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Page | 150
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Gender BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Page | 151
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Gender BY
Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * How frequently do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you visit a doctor in a year
Page | 152
Gender * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Gender Male 33.2% 34.2% 7.0% 2.1% 76.5%
Female 6.4% 13.4% 3.7% 23.5%
Total 39.6% 47.6% 10.7% 2.1% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Marital_status BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL

/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Page | 153
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Marital_status BY
Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 154
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Marital Status * How 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

frequently do you visit a
doctor in a year
Marital Status * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Marital Status Unmarried 34.2% 42.2% 9.1% 2.1% 87.7%
Married 4.8% 5.3% 1.6% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 39.6% 47.6% 10.7% 2.1% 100.0%
Page | 155
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Education BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Page | 156
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Education BY
Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Education * How frequently 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

do you visit a doctor in a year
Page | 157
Education * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Undergraduate 13.4% 17.1% 2.1% 2.1% 34.8%
Graduate 18.7% 21.4% 7.5% 47.6%
Post Graduate 6.4% 9.1% 1.1% 16.6%
Total 39.6% 47.6% 10.7% 2.1% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Occupation BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL

/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Page | 158
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Occupation BY
Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 159
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Occupation * How frequently 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

do you visit a doctor in a year
Occupation * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Occupation Student 17.1% 24.1% 3.7% 1.1% 46.0%
Business 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 8.6%
Page | 160
Occupation * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
More than 5
Occupation Student 17.1% 24.1% 3.7% 1.1% 46.0%
Business 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 8.6%
Total 39.6% 47.6% 10.7% 2.1% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Avg.monthly_income BY Doctor_in_a_year /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES

Crosstabs
Notes
Comments
Page | 161
output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
Doctor_in_a_year
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 162
Cases
Valid Missing Total

How frequently do you visit a
doctor in a year
Average monthly income * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
Not every year 1-3 times 4-5 times
Tk 30000-50000 11.8% 14.4% 3.2%
Tk 50000-70000 8.6% 11.2% 1.1%
Tk 70000-100000 4.8% 5.3%
Tk 100000+ 6.4% 3.7% 4.3%
Page | 163
Average monthly income * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year Crosstabulation
% of Total
Not every year 1-3 times 4-5 times
Tk 30000-50000 11.8% 14.4% 3.2%
Tk 50000-70000 8.6% 11.2% 1.1%
Tk 70000-100000 4.8% 5.3%
Tk 100000+ 6.4% 3.7% 4.3%
Total 39.6% 47.6% 10.7%
Average monthly income * How frequently do you visit a doctor in a year

Crosstabulation
% of Total
How frequently
do you visit a
doctor in a year
More than 5
times Total
Average monthly income <30000 23.0%
Tk 30000-50000 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 1.1% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 10.2%
Page | 164
Tk 100000+ 1.1% 15.5%
Total 2.1% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Age Gender BY Do_u_visit /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL /COUNT

ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.
Page | 165
Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Age Gender BY Do_u_visit
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Do you visit private 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

medical practitioner
Page | 166
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Do you visit private 186 99.5% 1 .5% 187 100.0%

Gender * Do you visit private 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Age * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
% of Total
Do you visit private medical

practitioner
yes No Total
Age Below 20 1.6% 2.2% 3.8%
21-30 65.1% 18.8% 83.9%
31-40 11.3% 1.1% 12.4%
Total 78.0% 22.0% 100.0%
Gender * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
Page | 167
% of Total

practitioner
yes No Total
Gender Male 58.3% 18.2% 76.5%
Female 19.8% 3.7% 23.5%
Total 78.1% 21.9% 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Marital_status Education Occupation BY Do_u_visit /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES

Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Page | 168
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Syntax CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Marital_status Education
Occupation BY Do_u_visit
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Page | 169
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Marital Status * Do you visit 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Education * Do you visit 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Occupation * Do you visit 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

Marital Status * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner
yes No Total
Married 9.6% 2.1% 11.8%
Seperated .5% .5%
Total 78.1% 21.9% 100.0%
Page | 170
Education * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner
yes No Total
Graduate 39.0% 8.6% 47.6%
Total 78.1% 21.9% 100.0%
Occupation * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner
yes No Total
Business 4.3% 4.3% 8.6%
Total 78.1% 21.9% 100.0%
Page | 171
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Avg.monthly_income BY Do_u_visit /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments

output.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

File
as missing.

Page | 172
Syntax CROSSTABS
Do_u_visit
/CELLS=TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average monthly income * Do 187 100.0% 0 .0% 187 100.0%

you visit private medical
practitioner
Page | 173
Average monthly income * Do you visit private medical practitioner Crosstabulation
% of Total

practitioner
yes No Total
Tk 30000-50000 23.0% 6.4% 29.4%
Tk 50000-70000 18.2% 3.7% 21.9%
Tk 70000-100000 9.1% 1.1% 10.2%
Tk 100000+ 12.3% 3.2% 15.5%
Total 78.1% 21.9% 100.0%
Page | 174
Appendix H: Graphical Model (first one)
Graphical Model:
Up to date equipment
Appropriate
Tangibility
facilities for service
J1, Pg.20,21;J2, Pg.5
Appealing facilities
Employees’ appearance
Providing
preciselyscheduledser Reliability
vice J1, Pg.20,21; J2, Pg.5
Waiting time of the service
Keeping accurate records
Dependable&sencere staffs
Satisfaction
Maintaining smooth flow of patients (Perception of

consumers
Receiving prompt service Responsiveness towards privately
and response upon request J1, Pg.20,21;J2, Pg.5 practicing medical
practitioners)
Prompt willingness to help
Trustworthy
Security
Assurance BEHAVIORAL
Courteous J1, Pg.20,21; J2, Pg.5 COMPONENT
Focused concentration
Convenient operating hours

Loyalty
Personal Attention Empathy (Consumer Preference)
J1, Pg.20,21;J2, Pg.5
Feeling the need
Patients’ best interest

Page | 175
Page | 176

Project Final Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Final Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Final Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSUMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS PRIVATELY

PRACTICING MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

PROJECT WORK (BUS 498)

East West University

Mr. Farhan Faruqui

Department of Business administration

East West University

Subject: Submission of Project paper on “Consumer Perceptions towards

Suchita Roy Choudhury

Department Of Business Administration

After the Almighty, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Farhan Faruqui, my Project

The interaction between patients and healthcare providers is critical as it influences

1.0 Background of the study 6

Healthcare industry of Bangladesh is heavily decentralized and good quality health

The number of private healthcare institutions are increasing in Bangladesh. This

2.0 Literature Review

According to the journalService Quality in Health Care Centres: An Empirical Study,

3.0 Problem Definition

3.1 Management Decision problem:

Should a new private health clinic be launched?

3.2 Marketing Research Problems

How do patient choose their preferred healthcare providers?

3.3 Specific Market Research Problem

Keeping accurate records

Maintaining smooth flow of patients (Perception of

Convenient operating hours

Patients’ best interest

Figure 1: Graphical Model

RQ1: Does Reliability influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H01: Reliability does not influence consumer perception.

Ha1: Reliability influences consumer perception.

RQ2: Does Responsiveness influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H02: Responsiveness does not influence consumer perception.

Ha2: Responsiveness influences consumer perception.

RQ3: Does Assurance influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H03: Assurance does not influence consumer perception.

Ha3Assurance influences consumer perception.

RQ4: Does Empathy influence consumer perception towards privately practicing

H04: Empathy does not influence consumer perception.

Ha4: Empathy influences consumer perception.

RQ5: Does Demographical profile of consumers influence consumer perception toward

H05: Demographical profile does not influence consumer perception.

Ha5: Demographical profile influences consumer perception.

H06: Psychological profile does not influence consumer perception.

Ha6: Psychological profile influences consumer perception.

H07: Perception does not create consumer preference.

Ha7: Perception creates consumer preference.

Ha8: Consumer preference create purchase decision towards privately practicing

6.0 Research Design:

A research design is a framework or blueprint for conducting the marketing research

The types of design that I will use in this research are:

• Exploratory research and

• Descriptive research design

Secondary data anaysis: I followed three international journals where we got 5

3. Data Obtain: A total of 200 respondents will be collected. A total of 200

4. Sample area and size:

5. Data Analysis Method:

7.0 Data Analysis and findings

7.1 Data Reliability: