You are on page 1of 25

Research Methodology in Management - Case Presentation

Ph.D. course 2015-2016

Title: Is Marketing Research the Cure for Norton Healthcare


Kosair Childrens Hospitals Ailment

Presented By

Naveen Varada
Ph.D. Scholar (2015-16)
ID: 1226516002
GSIB, GITAM University
Introduction:
Primary concern of hospitals has been producing services, rather than servicing markets. Average Hospital occupancy was 70 %
Yr 1990 USA
nationwide.( American Hospital Associations Report)
Average Hospital occupancy was 66.1% nationwide and in Yr 2005 the hospital occupancy rate was 63 %.

Transformation of health service industry from Producers market ------ Buyers market

Reasons: Tremendous inventions in Human Drug industry, Fast recovery services, Trend towards out-patient Treatment.
Yr 1999- USA
Leads to Customer oriented service offers- room, food, parking, friendly hospitality , customized health plans-- Advertisement
to survive in business and make competitive advantage.
Norton Healthcare Kosair Childrens Hospital Inc. (NHKCH) --- Louisville, Kentucky State, USA ---- only full service childrens
hospital in Kentucky state.

Expanded its services to pediatric intensive care - offered child-friendly environment--- red wagons for child transportation, book
Yr 2000 NHKCH
& video library, play rooms on all patient floors, extra bed for guardian or parent, child life.

Leader in market share in the region IN in-patient admissions, outpatient visits, ER visits and Total surgeries.

NHKC hospital wants to enter into maternity services to increase business and awareness among customers.
Yr 2006- NHKCH NHKCH felt that Product line Marketing Approach is appropriate to get success in maternity hospital services.

The hospital has the capability to establish a maternity line, but uncertain about How to market the maternity line.
NHKCH would like to undertake a marketing research to find a solution.
Research Methodology:
Sample size : 270 respondents from Kentucky state
Period of study : Yr 2006-2007
Data collection method: Collected primary data by survey method using Semi-structured questionnaire contains few closed ended
questions and one open ended question .

Variables in data file:


Reputation of hospital, quality of care, Distance from home, Advice from doctor, Advice from friends, Advertisements, Friendliness of
staff, State of art of maternity facilities, state of art of nursery facilities and maternity insurance.
Familiarity of features of maternity services
Perfect maternity facility (Integrated operation, Pre-birth classes and Post birth-classes)
Loyalty towards hospital, Convenience of related services, Full line maternity services, high quality care and very
convenient(Distance).
Demographics: Gender, Marital status, Age, Education level and Income range of household.
Objectives:
1. To assess the relationship between services offered by a perfect maternity facility and demographics.

2. To explore the factors that influence customers in selecting a hospital for delivery.

3. To determine whether significant difference exist across hospitals with respect to selection of hospital .

4. To explore the variables impacting familiarity with features of maternity services.

Hypothesis:
1. There is no relationship existing between perfect maternity facility and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

(Perfect Maternity Facility Includes Integrated operations, Pre-birth classes and Post-birth classes)

2. Hospitals are showing similarity with respect to factors that influence selection of hospital for delivery.

3. Familiarity of features of maternity services is independent to the variables - Loyalty towards Hospital, Convenience of Related Services,

Full Maternity Services, High Quality Care and Very Convenient.


1. To assess the relationship between services offered by a perfect maternity facility and Age, marital status,
Education level & Income.
Hypothesis:

1) H0 : There is no relationship existing between Integrated operation and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

Ha : There is significant relationship existing between Integrated operation and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

2) H0 : There is no relationship existing between Pre-birth classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

Ha : There is significant relationship existing between Pre-birth classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

3) H0 : There is no relationship existing between Post birth-classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

Ha : There is significant relationship existing between Post birth-classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

Chi-square test:
Testing hypothesis about the significant association between variables.

Significance level ( ) is 0.05 .

Cross tabulation between Perfect maternity facility (Integrated operation, Pre-birth classes and Post birth-classes) versus Age, Marital status,
Education level and Income range of household.
Frequency Tables:

Statistics Age range


Marital Status Age_range education of Income range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
respondent annually Percent
< 25 yrs 66 24.4 24.4 24.4
Valid 270 270 270 270 26-40 yrs 146 54.1 54.1 78.5
N 23 8.5 8.5 87.0
Missing 0 0 0 0 Valid 41-55 yrs
> 56 yrs 35 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 270 100.0 100.0

Income range annually


Education levels of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Percent
< high school 45 16.7 16.7 16.7
high school 43 15.9 15.9 32.6
< $ 20000 9 3.3 3.3 3.3
graduate
Valid some college 96 35.6 35.6 68.1 27 10.0 10.0 13.3
$20000-39999
college graduate 86 31.9 31.9 100.0
270 100.0 100.0 $40000-69999 30 11.1 11.1 24.4
Total

$70000-99999 105 38.9 38.9 63.3


Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Valid 60 22.2 22.2 85.6
Percent Percent $100000-
married 231 85.6 85.6 85.6 149999
never married 11 4.1 4.1 89.6
> $150000 39 14.4 14.4 100.0
Valid divorced / 28 10.4 10.4 100.0
widowed 270 100.0 100.0
Total 270 100.0 100.0 Total
Integrated Operation * Age range:
Crosstab Chi-Square Tests
Age_range
Asymp.
> 56
Sig. (2-
< 25 yrs 26-40 yrs 41-55 yrs yrs Total
Value df sided)
Integrated No Count 64 41 2 30 137 a
Pearson Chi-Square 119.817 3 .000
Operation % within Age_range 97.0% 28.1% 8.7% 85.7% 50.7%
Yes Count 2 105 21 5 133 Likelihood Ratio 140.649 3 .000
% within Age_range 3.0% 71.9% 91.3% 14.3% 49.3% Linear-by-Linear Association 4.342 1 .037
Total Count 66 146 23 35 270 N of Valid Cases 270
% within Age_range 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 11.33.

Integrated Operation * Marital Status:


Crosstab Chi-Square Tests
Marital Status
divorced
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
never /
married married widowed Total
Pearson Chi-Square 44.253a 2 .000
Integrated No Count 98 11 28 137 Likelihood Ratio 59.330 2 .000
Operation % within Marital Status 42.4% 100.0% 100.0% 50.7% Linear-by-Linear
Yes Count 133 0 0 133 Association 40.816 1 .000
% within Marital Status 57.6% 0.0% 0.0% 49.3%
N of Valid Cases 270
Total Count 231 11 28 270
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
% within Marital Status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% count is 5.42.
Integrated Operation * Education of respondent:
Crosstab Chi-Square Tests
education of respondent
high Asymp.
< high school some college Sig. (2-
school graduate college graduate Total Value df sided)
Integrated No Count 30 2 22 83 137 Pearson Chi-Square 142.929a 3 .000
Operation % within education of respondent 66.7% 4.7% 22.9% 96.5% 50.7%
Likelihood Ratio 171.400 3 .000
Yes Count 15 41 74 3 133
% within education of respondent 33.3% 95.3% 77.1% 3.5% 49.3% Linear-by-Linear Association 26.652 1 .000
Total Count 45 43 96 86 270 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
% within education of respondent expected count is 21.18.
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Integrated Operation * Income range annually:


Crosstab Chi-Square Tests
Income range annually
$10000 >
< $ $20000 $40000 $70000- 0- $15000 Asymp. Sig.
20000 -39999 -69999 99999 149999 0 Total Value df (2-sided)
Integrated No Count 9 8 13 11 57 39 137 Pearson Chi-Square
167.202a 5 .000
Operation % within Income range
100.0% 29.6% 43.3% 10.5% 95.0% 100.0% 50.7%
annually Likelihood Ratio 206.110 5 .000
Yes Count 0 19 17 94 3 0 133 Linear-by-Linear
% within Income range Association 39.317 1 .000
0.0% 70.4% 56.7% 89.5% 5.0% 0.0% 49.3%
annually
Total Count 9 27 30 105 60 39 270 N of Valid Cases 270
% within Income range a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
annually 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% expected count is 4.43.
Pre-Birth Classes * Age range: Pre-Birth Classes * Marital Status:
Crosstab Crosstab
Age_range Marital Status
< 25 26-40 41-55 > 56 never divorced /
yrs yrs yrs yrs Total married married widowed Total
Pre-Birth No Count 66 140 22 14 242 Pre-Birth No Count 231 11 0 242
Classes % within Age_range 100.0% 95.9% 95.7% 40.0% 89.6% Classes % within Marital Status 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 89.6%
Yes Count 0 6 1 21 28 Yes Count 0 0 28 28
% within Age_range 0.0% 4.1% 4.3% 60.0% 10.4% % within Marital Status 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 10.4%
Total Count 66 146 23 35 270 Total Count 231 11 28 270
% within Age_range 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % within Marital Status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Pre-Birth Classes * Education of respondent: Pre-Birth Classes * Income range annually:


Crosstab Crosstab
education of respondent Income range annually
high $1000
$2000 $4000 $7000 >
< high school some college <$ 00- Total
0- 0- 0- $1500
school graduate college graduate Total 20000 14999
39999 69999 99999 00
Pre-Birth No Count 24 41 91 86 242 9
Classes % within education of Count 3 22 21 101 56 39 242
53.3% 95.3% 94.8% 100.0% 89.6% No % within Income 100.0
respondent 33.3% 81.5% 70.0% 96.2% 93.3% 89.6%
Yes Count Pre-Birth range annually %
21 2 5 0 28
Classes Count 6 5 9 4 4 0 28
% within education of
46.7% 4.7% 5.2% 0.0% 10.4% Yes % within Income
respondent 66.7% 18.5% 30.0% 3.8% 6.7% 0.0% 10.4%
Total Count range annually
45 43 96 86 270
Count 9 27 30 105 60 39 270
% within education of
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total % within Income 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
respondent
range annually % % % % % % %
Post-Birth Classes * Age range: Post-Birth Classes * Marital Status:
Crosstab Crosstab
Age_range Marital Status
26-40 41-55 divorced /
< 25 yrs yrs yrs > 56 yrs Total married never married widowed Total
Post-Birth No Count 66 143 22 26 257 Post-Birth No Count 229 0 28 257
Classes % within Age_range 100.0% 97.9% 95.7% 74.3% 95.2% Classes % within Marital Status 99.1% 0.0% 100.0% 95.2%
Yes Count 0 3 1 9 13 Yes Count 2 11 0 13
% within Age_range 0.0% 2.1% 4.3% 25.7% 4.8% % within Marital Status .9% 100.0% 0.0% 4.8%
Total Count 66 146 23 35 270 Total Count 231 11 28 270
% within Age_range 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % within Marital Status 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
%

Post-Birth Classes * Education of respondent: Pre-Birth Classes * Income range annually:


Crosstab Crosstab
education of respondent Income range annually
high college $100
>
< high school some graduat < $ $20000- $40000- $70000 000- Total
$150
school graduate college e Total 20000 39999 69999 -99999 1499
000
Post- No Count 36 43 92 86 257 99
Birth % within education Count 6 24 26 104 58 39 257
Classes of respondent 80.0% 100.0% 95.8% 100.0% 95.2% No % within Income 96.7 100.0 95.2
66.7% 88.9% 86.7% 99.0%
Yes Count 9 0 4 0 13 Post-Birth range annually % % %
% within education Classes Count 3 3 4 1 2 0 13
of respondent 20.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.8% Yes % within Income
33.3% 11.1% 13.3% 1.0% 3.3% 0.0% 4.8%
range annually
Total Count 45 43 96 86 270
Count 9 27 30 105 60 39 270
% within education 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total % within Income 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
of respondent % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
range annually % % % %
Interpretation:
Since the P-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05), we have to accept the alternate hypothesis. So, there is a significant relationship
between integrated operation and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

P-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05), we have to accept the Alternate hypothesis. So, there is a significant relationship between
Pre-birth classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

P-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05), we have to accept the Alternate hypothesis. So, there is a significant relationship between
Post-birth classes and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.

Since the P-value (0.000) is less than the significance level (0.05), we have to accept the Alternate hypothesis. Thus, we have to
conclude that there is a significant relationship between Perfect maternity facility and Age, marital status, Education level & Income.
2. To explore the factors that influence customers in selection of a hospital.
Factor analysis:
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .883 KMO measure indicates appropriateness sample data to do factor analysis
Approx. Chi-Square 2797.848
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 45
Sig. .000 Bartletts test tests whether correlation matrix is identity matrix or not

Communalities Total Variance Explained


Initial Extraction Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Reputation of Hospital 1.000 .885
% of Cumulati % of Cumulati % of Cumulati
Quality of Care 1.000 .853 Component Total Variance ve % Total Variance ve % Total Variance ve %
Distance from Home 1.000 .963 1 5.351 53.513 53.513 5.351 53.513 53.513 5.313 53.135 53.135
2 2.385 23.849 77.363 2.385 23.849 77.363 2.302 23.021 76.155
Advice from Doctor 1.000 .881
3 1.152 11.524 88.887 1.152 11.524 88.887 1.273 12.732 88.887
Advice from Friends 1.000 .904 4 .226 2.256 91.143
Advertisements 1.000 .881 5 .204 2.043 93.186
1.000 .931 6 .176 1.763 94.949
Friendliness of Staff
7 .165 1.646 96.594
Maternity Facilities 1.000 .868
8 .142 1.424 98.018
Nursery Facilities 1.000 .845 9 .124 1.236 99.254
Maternity Insurance 1.000 .878 10 .075 .746 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Communality: The amount of variance a variable shares with all other variables taken for study.
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Reputation of Hospital .893 .277 .108
Quality of Care -.810 .422 .135
Distance from Home .023 -.236 -.952
Advice from Doctor .892 .273 .107
Advice from Friends -.877 .335 .153
Advertisements .021 -.892 .291
Friendliness of Staff -.889 .356 .116
Maternity Facilities .877 .296 .109
Nursery Facilities .880 .252 .086
Maternity Insurance -.006 -.902 .252
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.

Rotated Component Matrixa


Component
1 2 3
Reputation of Hospital .919 -.167 .111
Quality of Care -.759 -.425 .309
Distance from Home -.050 -.043 -.979
Advice from Doctor .918 -.164 .109
Advice from Friends -.832 -.342 .308
Advertisements -.047 .937 .028
Friendliness of Staff -.844 -.374 .279
Maternity Facilities .905 -.186 .119
Nursery Facilities .903 -.151 .085
Maternity Insurance -.076 .934 -.009
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Interpretation:

KMO measure = 0.883( lies between 0.5-1.0) , indicates 88.3% of common variance in between variables and factor analysis is an appropriate
technique to do analysis.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity showing significance (0.000) < 0.05, indicates that the data do not produce an identity matrix.

Eigenvalue indicates proportion of variance explained by each factor. First three factors have Eigenvalue more than 1. So these three factors
have retained in final solution.

The cumulative percentage for three factors is 88.887%. i.e., 88.887% variance has to be explained by these three factors.

Scree plot: Three factors are on the steep slope of the Scree plot. So these three should be retained in the model.

Factor 1 consists of variables 7 variables: Reputation of Hospital, Quality of care, Advice from doctor, advice from friends, Friendliness of
staff, maternity facilities and Nursery facilities. - (Reputation Factor)

Factor 2 consists of variables 2variables: Advertisements and Maternity insurance.---------- (Promotion Factor)

Factor 3 consists of variables 1variable: Distance from home ( Very convenient ).---------- (Distance Factor)
3.To determine whether significant difference exist across hospitals with respect to selection of hospital

Hypothesis:

H0 : All hospitals are showing similarity with respect to factors that influence selection of hospital for delivery .

Ha : There is significant difference across hospitals with respect to the factors that influence selection of hospital for delivery .

Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA):

Testing hypothesis about the significant difference in several population means.

H0 : B= C= D= E= F= G= H= I= nhkch
Ha : Not all j s are not equal ( j= B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,NHKCH)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Reputation of Hospital Between Groups 567.061 8 70.883 210.920 .000
Within Groups 87.713 261 .336
Total 654.774 269
Quality of Care ( Medical Technology) Between Groups 552.741 8 69.093 152.747 .000
Within Groups 118.059 261 .452
Total 670.800 269
Distance from Home Between Groups 110.048 8 13.756 81.378 .000
Within Groups 44.119 261 .169
Total 154.167 269
Advice from Doctor Between Groups 611.150 8 76.394 162.498 .000
Within Groups 122.702 261 .470
Total 733.852 269
Advice from Friends Between Groups 583.698 8 72.962 274.051 .000
Within Groups 69.488 261 .266
Total 653.185 269
Advertisements Between Groups 231.854 8 28.982 131.251 .000
Within Groups 57.632 261 .221
Total 289.485 269
Friendliness of Staff Between Groups 603.417 8 75.427 491.548 .000
Within Groups 40.050 261 .153
Total 643.467 269
Maternity Facilities Between Groups 549.855 8 68.732 190.219 .000
Within Groups 94.307 261 .361
Total 644.163 269
Nursery Facilities Between Groups 545.763 8 68.220 138.444 .000
Within Groups 128.612 261 .493
Total 674.374 269
Maternity Insurance Between Groups 216.115 8 27.014 115.285 .000
Within Groups 61.159 261 .234
Total 277.274 269
Means Plots:
Preference of Hospital with respect to factors that influence selection of hospital for delivery

Hospital B Hospital C Hospital D Hospital E Hospital F Hospital G Hospital H Hospital I NHKCH


1 Reputation of Hospital 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 Quality of Care 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
3 Distance from Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 Advice from Doctor 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5 Advice from Friends 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
6 Advertisements 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
7 Friendliness of Staff 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
8 Maternity Facilities 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
9 Nursery Facilities 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
10 Maternity Insurance 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total preference 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 1
Total preference % 40 40 20 30 40 30 30 20 10
Note: Table created with the help of Means Plots

Hospital B, Hospital C and Hospital F have competitive advantage over other hospitals with respect to nursery facilities, maternity facilities,
Doctors advice and reputation.

Total preference percentage of each hospital B,C & F = 40 %.

Quality care, Advice from friends and Friendliness of staff have second preference.
4.To explore the variables impacting familiarity with features of maternity services.

Hypothesis : Multiple linear Regression :


Model Summaryb
H0 : 0= lth= crs= fms= hqc= vc Std. Error
Adjusted R of the Durbin-
Ha : Not all j s are not equal ( j= lth, crs, fms, hqc, vc) Model R R Square Square Estimate Watson
1 .900a .810 .807 .641 2.025
a. Predictors: (Constant), Very Convenient, Loyalty for Delivery
Coefficientsa Hospital, Full Maternity Services, High Quality Care, Convenience of
Related Services
Unstandardized Standardized b. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.613 .600 4.353 .000
ANOVAa
Loyalty towards
.022 .034 .017 .643 .521 Sum of Mean
Hospital
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
Convenience of 1 Regression 463.274 5 92.655 225.747 .000b
Related Services .782 .059 .609 13.156 .000
Residual 108.355 264 .410
Full Maternity Total 571.630 269
Services -.390 .055 -.277 -7.144 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services
b. Predictors: (Constant), Very Convenient, Loyalty for Delivery Hospital,
High Quality Care .025 .041 .020 .598 .550 Full Maternity Services, High Quality Care, Convenience of Related
Very Convenient -.228 .064 -.145 -3.547 .000 Services
a. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services
Interpretation:

R square: 0.810 i.e., 81% of variation in dependent variable explained by all independent variables.

Adjusted R-square: 0.807 i.e., 80.7% of variation happened in dependent variable explained by those independent variables actually
affect the dependent variable.

Durbin-Watson value: value 2.025 is around 2.00. Indicating there is no auto correlation in independent variables.

ANOVA Value : .000 , indicates there is significant difference among independent variables.

The co-efficient values for Loyalty towards hospital, High quality care are 0.521 and 0.550 respectively .

P-value of loyalty towards hospital is (0.521) > 0.05 ( 95% of significance level) and P-value of Quality care (0.550 )> 0.05
so these two independent variables are not explaining much about the variance in dependent variable i.e., 'familiarity of features of maternity services.

P-value (0.00) < 0.05 ( 95% of significance level) , for remaining three independent variables , indicates that they are explaining variance
happened in dependent variable familiarity of features of maternity services.

Regression model:

Familiarity of features of services (Y)= 2.613+ 0.782 ( Convenience of related services) - 0.390(Full maternity services) - 0.228 (very convenient)
Multiple linear Regression :
Model Summaryb ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
Adjusted R Std. Error of 1 Regression 462.954 3 154.318 377.715 .000b
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Durbin-Watson Residual 108.676 266 .409
1 a
.900 .810 .808 .639 2.030 Total 571.630 269
a. Predictors: (Constant), Very Convenient, Full Maternity Services, Convenience of Related a. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services
Services b. Predictors: (Constant), Very Convenient, Full Maternity Services,
b. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services Convenience of Related Services

Coefficientsa Interpretation:
Adjusted R-square: 0.808 i.e., 80.8 % of variation explained
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF Durbin-Watson value: value 2.03. No Auto correlation.
1 (Constant) 2.867 .517 5.542 .000
Convenience of Tolerance statistics are greater than 0.20
.779 .059 .607 13.159 .000 .336 2.976
Related Services VIF statistics are less than 5.00. So No Multicollinearity effect.
Full Maternity
-.389 .054 -.276 -7.200 .000 .485 2.063 In this model importance to very convenient factor is slightly
Services increased.
Very Convenient -.250 .055 -.158 -4.512 .000 .580 1.724
a. Dependent Variable: Familiarity with Maternity Services Regression model:
Familiarity of features of services (Y)= 2.867+ 0.779( CRS) -
Old regression model: 0.389(FMS) - 0.25 (VC)
Familiarity of features of services (Y)= 2.613+ 0.782 ( CRS) - 0.390(FMS)-0.228 (VC)
Inference:
From Chi-square analysis : 50% of respondents are not interested in Integrated operation. 90% of respondents are not interested
Pre-birth classes and 95 % of respondents are not interested in post-birth classes.

From Factor Analysis :There are three factors ( Reputation , promotion and Distance) addressing 88.887% of customers consideration
while selecting a hospital for delivery.

From ANOVA: Hospital B,C and F individually (40% preference) have good at maternity facilities, nursery facilities, doctors advice and
high reputation. Along with these above factors, NHKCH should also consider Distance from home factor to make competitive in the
maternity hospital market.

From Regression: Customers were chosen hospitals , those offered related maternity services and nearer to their home than
hospitals offering full maternity services ( Hospital charges may be a limiting factor ).

Conclusion:
1. NHKCH can market its maternity line through product line approach by offering related maternity services and nursery services
instead of full line maternity services.

2. While expanding their hospital business NHKCH should consider Distance, as an important factor.

3. NHKCH should concentrate on promoting their features of maternity services through Local doctors instead of advertisements.

Yes, Marketing Research can address and generate solution for NHKCH s Ailment.
Questions
and
Suggestions
THANK YOU

You might also like