Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 1, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pathogen Detection and Disease Assessment in Real-Time Using M-ROSE
Published on: March 1, 2024
How to evaluate surgical tourism service organizations in China: indicators system development and a pilot
Dan Zhang1, Yue Yan1,2, Mei-Xia Liao3
1Institute for Hospital Management, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, No.2279 Lishui Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, 518000, People's Republic of China.
Background:
Surgical tourism is an emerging economic sector, with the most growth potential demonstrated in China's health industry before the COVID-19 pandemic. Surgical tourism accounts for a large part of medical tourism services in China, with high requirements in terms of quality and safety. By contrast, China suffers from insufficient measurement tools and theoretical research. The aim of this study was to develop a set of reliable and feasible indicators by augmenting the Donabedian model to evaluate the quality of surgical tourism services.
Methods:
A literature review and focus group interview were used to generate indicators for the quality of surgical tourism services. The basic framework of the evaluation system was based on the structure-process-outcome Donabedian model. The screening and weight setting were conducted through an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and a two-round Delphi consultation with 13 panelists. The validity and reliability of experts were tested by the experts' positive coefficient, authority coefficient, and coordination coefficient. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by a pre-test distributed within an International Medical Department of a public hospital in China.
Results:
Based on the Donabedian quality theory, a novel evaluation system of surgical tourism service institutions was constructed with three dimensions, nine first-level items and 39 second-level items. The three dimensions consisted of the structure (0.315), process (0.287), and outcome (0.398), with several indicators for each dimension and each indicator was given a weight. Of the two rounds of Delphi consultation, the response rates were 86.67% and 100%. The coordination coefficient of expert opinions in the two rounds of consultation were 0.49 and 0.65 (p < 0.05). For the empirical study, the self-evaluation score of a public hospital was 86, which could rate as a two-star institution.
Conclusions:
Our evaluation system identified three suitable quality dimensions of surgical tourism services to improve the safety and quality of practical healthcare. It reflects the access criterion of surgical tourism institutions, provides references for the best choice of surgical services for tourists, and can be applied by healthcare managers and policy makers to allocate resources more efficiently and promote more surgical tourism services with international standards.
