YATAK SEÇİMİNDE FİZYOTERAPİST DANIŞMANLIĞINA İLİŞKİN TÜRK TOPLUMUNUN GÖRÜŞLERİ: NİTEL ODAK GRUP ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Amaç: Çok sayıda yatak üreticisi, doğru yatağın kişinin uykusunu ve yaşam kalitesini iyileştirebileceğini söyleyerek ürünlerini tedavi edici özelliklere sahip "ortopedik yataklar" olarak pazarlamaktadır. Bu nitel odak grup çalışmasında, müşterilerin fizyoterapist destek hizmeti veren yatak markasını nasıl gördüklerini ve müşterilerin farklı özelliklerdeki yatak firmaları hakkındaki deneyimlerini araştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntem: 20-60 yaşları arasında evli veya evliliğe hazırlanan, yatak satın almış veya araştırma aşamasında olan kadınlardan 50 katılımcı seçilmiştir. Grup tartışma kuralları belirlenmiş ve beş grupta da ayrı ayrı paylaşılmıştır. Veriler, “Çerçeve Analizi” yaklaşımı kullanılarak tematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar: Tüketicilerin yatak markalarına yönelik marka algılarının ve fizyoterapist danışmanlığına yönelik düşüncelerinin "yatak markaları hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?" ve "yatak seçiminde fizyoterapist danışmanlığı sizin için ne ifade ediyor?" gibi sorularla anlaşıldığını gördük. Bu iki tema katılımcılara sunulacak ve tartışılacaktır. Tartışma: Fizyoterapist danışmanlık hizmetinin tüketicinin belirttiği güven ihtiyacına yönelik bir hizmet olduğu görülmüştür. Projede, tüketiciyi yeni ve bilinmeyen yeni markaya yönelmeye ikna edebilecek yenilikçi bir hizmet sunulmuştur. Ancak daha önce başka markalarda da yaşanmış olan sağlık içerikli reklamların markaya olumsuz bir hava vermesi de mümkündür. Bu nedenle sahada çalışacak fizyoterapistlerin sağlık profesyoneli kimliğinden ziyade yaşam koçu gibi hareket etmeleri marka için daha faydalı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Danışmanlık
• Odak Gruplar
• Yatak
• Fizyoterapist
• Nitel Araştırma

OPINIONS OF TURKISH SOCIETY ON PHYSIOTHERAPIST CONSULTANCY FOR MATTRESS SELECTION: A QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUP STUDY

Abstract

Purpose: Numerous mattress manufacturers market their products as "orthopedic" with therapeutic capabilities, claiming that the right mattress can improve an individual's sleep and quality of life. In this qualitative focus group study, we aimed to investigate how customers see the mattress brand that provides physiotherapist support services and their experiences with mattress companies with different characteristics. Methods: Fifty participants were selected from women between the ages of 20 and 60 who were married or in preparation for marriage, and who had purchased a mattress or were in the research phase. The group discussion rules were determined and shared separately in all five groups. The data were thematically analyzed using the framework analysis approach. Results: Customers' perceptions about mattress brands and their thoughts on physiotherapist consultancy are understood by questions such as "what do you think about mattress brands?" and "what does physiotherapist consultancy for mattress selection mean to you?" These two themes will be presented and discussed. Conclusion: The physiotherapist consultancy was a service to satisfy consumer needs in terms of trust. An innovative service has been offered that can persuade the consumer to switch to the new and unknown New Brand. However, it is also possible that advertisements with health content, as previously experienced with other brands, have a negative effect on brand perception. For this reason, it may be more beneficial for the brand if physiotherapists who will work in the field act as life coaches rather than health professionals.

Keywords

• Counseling
• Focus Groups
• Mattress
• Physiotherapist
• Qualitative Research

References

1. 1. Low FZ, Chua MC, Lim PY, Yeow CH. Effects of mattress material on body pressure profiles in different sleeping postures. J Chiropr Med. 2017;16(1):1-9.
2. 2. Huysmans T, Haex B, De Wilde T, Van Audekercke R, Vander Sloten J, Van der Perre G. A 3D active shape model for the evaluation of the alignment of the spine during sleeping. Gait Posture. 2006;24(1):54-61.
3. 3. Bader GG, Engdal S. The influence of bed firmness on sleep quality. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(5):487-97.
4. 4. Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Riener G, Nelson LD. Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(19):7236-40.
5. 5. Okamoto K, Iizuka S, Okudaira N. The effects of air mattress upon sleep and bed climate. Appl Human Sci. 1997;16(3):97-102.
6. 6. Tonetti L, Martoni M, Fabbri M, Natale V. Relationship between mattress technological features and sleep quality: an actigraphic study of healthy participants. Biol Rhythm Res. 2011;42(3):247-54.
7. 7. Li X, Zhou B, Shen L, Wu Z. Exploring the effect of mattress cushion materials on human–mattress interface temperatures, pre-sleep thermal state and sleep quality. Indoor Built Environ. 2021;30(5):650-64.
8. 8. Chiba S, Yagi T, Ozone M, Sato M, Nishino S. Evaluations of effects of high rebound and low rebound mattress pads on nocturnal sleep and its associated physiology. Sleep Med. 2013;14:e219-e20.

9. 9. Lan L, Tsuzuki K, Liu YF, Lian ZW. Thermal environment and sleep quality: A review. Energy Build. 2017;149:101-13.
10. 10. Rincón Casado A, Larrodé Diaz M, Zacarias F, Molina R. Experimental and computational model for a neonatal incubator with thermoelectric conditioning system. Energies. 2021;14:5278.
11. 11. Robinson S, Benton G. Warmed blankets: an intervention to promote comfort for elderly hospitalized patients. Geriatr Nurs. 2002;23(6):320-3.
12. 12. DeVocht JW, Wilder DG, Bandstra ER, Spratt KF. Biomechanical evaluation of four different mattresses. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(3):297-304.
13. 13. Jacobson BH, Wallace T, Gemmell H. Subjective rating of perceived back pain, stiffness and sleep quality following introduction of medium-firm bedding systems. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(4):128-34.
14. 14. Caggiari G, Talesa GR, Toro G, Jannelli E, Monteleone G, Puddu L. What type of mattress should be chosen to avoid back pain and improve sleep quality? Review of the literature. J Orthop Traumatol. 2021;22(1):51.
15. 15. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?:An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods. 2006;18(1):59-82.
16. 16. Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field methods. 2017;29(1):3-22.
17. 17. Ward DJ, Furber C, Tierney S, Swallow V. Using framework analysis in nursing research: a worked example. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(11):2423-31.
18. 18. Coşkunsu DK, Toprak M, Duman Ç, İnal HS. An assessment of physiotherapists’ employment time and status in Turkey. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2018;29(2):44-52.
19. 19. Timurtaş E, Avcı EE, Demirbüken İ, Yıldız A, Öztürk O, Tarım M, et al. Physiotherapist employment in primary health care: Feasibility research in İstanbul province. Health Care Acad. 2021;8(1):8-13.
20. 20. Grewal D, Hulland J, Kopalle PK, Karahanna E. The future of technology and marketing: a multidisciplinary perspective. J Acad Mark Sci. 2020;48(1):1-8.
21. 21. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals — HHS efforts to Improve U.S. health care. N Eng J Med. 2015;372(10):897-9.
22. 22. Madan M, Ülger Ö, Yildirim SA. A comparison of generic competence levels of higher education graduates with expected competencies in business life: Example of physiotherapy and rehabilitation program. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 32(2):103-13.