The Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey is a standardized survey that have been administered at many colleges and universities in the U.S. and other countries to assess the level of quality of work life.
The Theoretical Model Underlying the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
Description of the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
Conducting the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
The Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey Report
Project Fee
The Theoretical Model Underlying the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
See exact items of the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare measure and other model constructs shown in the figure in the actual online survey questionnaire in the survey.
Community healthcare satisfaction refers to an overall satisfaction a person may feel toward the general healthcare environment in their community. This overall assessment can be assumed to be a function of the person’s perception of a variety of general healthcare programs and services in the community. These programs or services may include: alcohol and drug abuse programs, inpatient hospital care, outpatient hospital care, and elderly health services, among others.
References
Sirgy, M. J., Hansen, D. E., & Littlefield, J. E. (1994). Does hospital satisfaction affect life satisfaction?. Journal of Macromarketing, 14(2), 36-46.
Sirgy, M. J., Mentzer, J. T., Rahtz, D. R., & Meadow, H. L. (1991). Satisfaction with health care services consumption and life satisfaction among the elderly. Journal of Macromarketing, 11(1), 24-39.
Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Meadow, H. L., & Littlefield, J. E. (1995). Satisfaction with healthcare services and life satisfaction among elderly and non-elderly consumers. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing, 5, 87-91.
Bibliography
Abelson, R. (2002). Patients surge and hospitals hunt for beds. New York Times, March 28.
Aiello, A., Rosenberg, L. J., & Czepiel, J. A. (1977). Scaling the heights of consumer satisfaction: An evaluation of alternative measures. New York University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (2012). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. Springer Science & Business Media.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation.
Chambers, L. W., Ounpuu, S., Krueger, P., & Vermeulen, M. (1997). Quality of life and planning for health boards. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies (International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, Blacksburg, Virginia), 11.
Davies, A. R., & Ware Jr, J. E. (1988). Involving consumers in quality of care assessment. Health Affairs, 7(1), 33-48.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.
Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Methodological pitfalls and solutions in satisfaction research. New Dimensions in Marketing/Quality-of-Life Research, 27-46.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Jeffres, L. W., & Dobos, J. (1992). Communication and public perceptions of the quality of life: Testing the model. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing, 4, 43-49.
Maronic, T. J., & Miller, A. R. (1992). Satisfaction and other issues in hearing aid purchases by elderly consumers: a quality-of-life issue. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing, 4, 29-34.
Meadow, H. L. (1983). The relationship between consumer satisfaction and life satisfaction for the elderly.
Meadow, H. L. (1988). The satisfaction attitude hierarchy: does marketing contribute. In Proceedings of the 1988 American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL (pp. 482-483).
Merkle, J. F. (2002). Computer simulation: A methodology to improve the efficiency in the Brooke Army Medical Center Family Care Clinic. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(1).
Michalos, A. C. (1996). Migration and the quality of life: A review essay. Social Indicators Research, 39, 121-166.
Moriarty, D. (1997). Tracking population health status and health-related quality of life in the United States. Development in Quality-of-Life Studies, 1, 59.
Norman, W. C., Harwell, R., & Allen, L. R. (1997). The role of recreation on the quality of life of residents in rural communities in South Carolina. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies, 1, 65.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. (1997). Values and sources of subjective well being. Development in Quality-of-Life Studies, 1, 66.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well‐being. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 157-184.
Rahtz, D. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (1994). Corporate strategy and quality of life: a strategic planning philosophy and model for a changing health care environment. Advances in Health Care Research (American Association for Advances in Health Care Research, Madison WI), 125-132.
Rahtz, D. R., Sirgy, M. J., & Meadow, H. L. (1989). Exploring the relationship between health care system satisfaction and life satisfaction among the elderly. Developments in Marketing Science, 12, 531-536.
Rahtz, D. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (2000). Marketing of Health Care Within a Community: A Quality-of-Life/Needs Assessment Model and Method. Journal of Business Research, 48(3), 165-176.
Serota, S. P. (2002). The path to affordability. Modern Healthcare, 32(6), 25-25.
Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life (Vol. 12). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Van Trijp, H. C. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283-299.
Wechsler, J. (2002). Healthcare costs to rule policy agenda in 2002: pressure to curb healthcare spending will shape debate on benefits, payments in Washington and across the country.(Politics & Policy). Managed Healthcare Executive, 12(1), 12-14.
Widgery, R. N. (1992). Neighborhood quality of life: A subjective matter. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing, 4, 112-14.
Widgery, R., & Angur, M. G. (1997). Race relations, neighborhood integration, and quality-of-city life. Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies, 1, 101.
Wilkie, W. L., & Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 428-441.
Description of the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
Faculty and staff in the target college and university are introduced to the survey questionnaire via a cover letter from their employer describing the objectives of the survey as aiming to assess the quality of work life in their college or university. Participants are assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous.
The questionnaire consists of three major sections. The first section (“Feelings about How the Firm Addresses Your Personal Needs”) involves the core Quality-of-Community-Healthcare survey items—items related to satisfaction with the seven categories of human needs (and 16 dimensions in total). See exact items of this construct in the actual online survey questionnaire.
The second section of the questionnaire involves a measure of organizational commitment. The third section focuses on measures of satisfaction with various life domains, including the work domain, and life overall. See exact items of these constructs in the actual online survey questionnaire.
The last (third) section of the questionnaire contains demographic questions related to gender, age, educational level, years of service in current type of work, and years of service.
Conducting the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey
The Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies (MIQOLS) provides human resource managers of any college or university worldwide with assistance in conducting the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey (online). The Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey is first adapted to the exact specification of the college or university in question. The adapted version of the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey is then posted on MIQOLS website for data collection. The staff at the client college or university publicizes a call to their faculty and staff to complete the online survey anonymously and confidentially. A link is provided with the call to complete the survey with a specific deadline.
After the deadline, the survey site is closed, data analyzed, and a report is issued to the client college or university. To see an example of a typical report, see the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey Report below.
The Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey Report
The report is structured as follows:
- Cover page: A title page with applicant contact information and MIQOLS contact information
- Executive Summary: The entire content of the report is summarized here.
- Theory and Model: The theoretical model underlying the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey is described here and the theoretical constructs are clearly defined. The research supporting the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare model is also discussed in this section.
- Description of the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey: This section contains a description of the constructs with corresponding survey items.
- Sampling and Data Collection: This part of the report describes the call issued to employees to participate in the Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey, the deadline imposed, any incentives used to encourage employee participation, the survey link, the number of employees who actually participated in the survey, the total number of employees contacted, and the response rate. The response rate of the client organization is compared to past response rates of other organizations.
- Survey Results: This section of the report provides descriptive statistics related to each survey item with figures (e.g., bar charts) against the norm. The norm is calculated based on the average of all past surveys that have been administered through MIQOLS.
- Discussion and Recommendations: The survey results are then summarized and interpreted in this section. As such, specific strengths and weaknesses are identified. The client organization is then encouraged to bolster their strengths and correct weaknesses.
- References: Exact references of corresponding text citations are fleshed out in this section.
- Appendices: Extra detailed information related to any aspect of the report is placed in this section.
- Click here to see an example of a report.
Project Fee
You can choose from the following options:
- $500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus statistical norms for every survey item;
- $4,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations;
- $7,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet), a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations, with additional analysis and reporting (i.e., results broken down by specific demographic groups) as requested.
To request MIQOLS to conduct a Quality-of-Community-Healthcare Survey, please send an e-mail message to the executive director of MIQOLS, Joe Sirgy, at office@miqols.org indicating interest. You can also contact MIQOLS by letter (address: 6020 Lyons Road, Dublin, Virginia 24084, USA) or by phone (540-674-5022; leave voicemail message). A staff member will contact you by e-mail to set up a telephone (or Skype or ZOOM) meeting. The staff member will answer whatever questions you may have and discuss the logistics of the entire project, the cost, survey specifications, time line, delivery of the survey report and other details
miqols.org