BİRİNCİ BASAMAK SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİNDE HEKİM SAHİPLENME VE HASTA MEMNUNİYETİ: İLİŞKİSEL HİZMET DENEYİMİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN KANITLAR

Öz

Bu çalışma, birinci basamak sağlık hizmetlerinde hekim sahiplenmesi ile hasta memnuniyeti arasındaki ilişkiyi ilişkisel kamu hizmeti deneyimi perspektifinden incelemektedir. Araştırma, Ankara’nın Keçiören ilçesindeki bir aile hekimliği biriminden hizmet alan 332 katılımcıyla kesitsel, tanımlayıcı ve ilişkisel bir tasarım kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler yüz yüze anket yöntemiyle elde edilmiş; tanımlayıcı istatistikler, Spearman korelasyon analizi, Mann–Whitney U ve Kruskal–Wallis testleri, Dunn–Bonferroni post-hoc karşılaştırmaları ve PROCESS Macro Model 1 kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, genel hekim sahiplenmesi ile hasta memnuniyeti arasında pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Hekim sahiplenmesinin bağlılık, koruyuculuk, öz kimlik, güven ve uyum boyutlarının her biri de hasta memnuniyeti ile pozitif yönde ilişkili bulunmuştur. Hekim sahiplenmesi ve hasta memnuniyeti düzeylerinin ayrıca hastalık türü, yaş, eğitim düzeyi ve hekime başvuru sıklığına göre farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra moderasyon analizi, hekime başvuru sıklığının hekim sahiplenmesi ile hasta memnuniyeti arasındaki ilişkide düzenleyici bir rol oynadığını göstermiştir. Genel olarak bulgular, aile hekimliği hizmetlerinden duyulan memnuniyetin yalnızca hizmet sunumunun teknik özellikleriyle değil, aynı zamanda hekimle kurulan ilişkisel bağ ve bakımın sürekliliği deneyimiyle de ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu değeri yönetimi
• Kamu hizmeti sunumu
• Hekim sahiplenmesi
• Hasta memnuniyeti

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışmada herhangi bir fon veya destekten yararlanılmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Yapılan bu çalışmada “Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi” kapsamında uyulması belirtilen tüm kurallara uyulmuştur. Yönergenin ikinci bölümü olan “Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler” başlığı altında belirtilen eylemlerden hiçbiri gerçekleştirilmemiştir

PHYSICIAN OWNERSHIP AND PATIENT SATISFACTION IN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE: EVIDENCE FROM A RELATIONAL SERVICE EXPERIENCE PERSPECTIVE

Öz

This study examines the relationship between physician ownership and patient satisfaction in primary healthcare from the perspective of relational public service experience. A cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational design was employed with 332 individuals receiving care from a family medicine unit in Keçiören, Ankara. Data were collected through face-to-face questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation analysis, Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests, Dunn–Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons, and PROCESS Macro Model 1. Overall physician ownership was positively and significantly associated with patient satisfaction (r = 0,469, p < 0,05). All dimensions of physician ownership—commitment, protectiveness, self-identity, trust, and congruence—were also positively associated with patient satisfaction. Both physician ownership and patient satisfaction differed significantly according to disease type, age, and education level. In contrast, physician ownership differed significantly according to the frequency of physician visits, whereas patient satisfaction did not (p = 0,073). Moderation analysis showed that visit frequency significantly moderated the relationship between physician ownership and patient satisfaction (ΔR² = 0,026, p = 0,016), with the association being more pronounced among participants who visited a physician every 2–3 months. Overall, the findings suggest that patients’ evaluations of family medicine services are associated not only with technical and organizational aspects of service delivery but also with the relational bond established with the physician and the experience of continuity in care.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Relational Public Services
• Public Service Delivery
• Physician Ownership
• Patient Satisfaction

Destekleyen Kurum

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in full compliance with all principles and rules specified in the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions. None of the actions defined under the section “Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics” of the Directive were committed during the conduct of this study.

Kaynakça

1. Akaydın, H., & Baltacı, A. (2024). The effect of physician-patient communication on patient satisfaction in family medicine services. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1185604
2. Alburmawi, R. A., Hamdan, K., Shaheen, A., & Albqoor, M. A. (2024). Patient satisfaction with primary health care services and primary health care providers. Public Health Nursing, 41(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.13296
3. Babaoğlu, C., Yıldız, M., & Kulaç, O. (2024). Street-level bureaucrats against pandemic in Türkiye: Problems & strategies. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 63, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1464403
4. Baredes, B. (2022). Serving citizens: Measuring the performance of services for a better user experience. (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, Report No. 52). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en
5. Başusta, V., & Lamba, M. (2024). Cadde-düzey bürokrasi çalışmaları üzerine bir inceleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 15(43), 1106–1120. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1391108
6. Burch, P., Walter, A., Stewart, S., & Bower, P. (2024). Patient reported measures of continuity of care and health outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Primary Care, 25, 309. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8
7. Cheema, F. S., Lee, E., Gupta, R., & Perry, J. L. (2026). Conceptualizing the street-level bureaucrat construct. Public Administration and Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.70093
8. Chen, C.-C., & Cheng, S.-H. (2023). Does continuity of care improve patient satisfaction? An instrumental variable approach. Health Policy, 130, 104754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104754

9. Correia, R. H., Dash, D., Pasat, Z., Strum, R. P., Aryal, K., Kabir, H., Potter, M., Swayze, E., Beaudoin, P., Ward, P., & Siu, H. Y.-H. (2025). Attributes of family physician encounters valued by older adults: A systematic review. BMC Primary Care, 26, 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02794-1
10. Eriksson, E., & Andersson, T. (2024). The ‘service turn’ in a new public management context: A street-level bureaucrat perspective. Public Management Review, 26(7), 2014–2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2241051
11. Eton, D. T., Ridgeway, J. L., Linzer, M., Boehm, D. H., Rogers, E. A., Yost, K. J., Finney Rutten, L. J., St Sauver, J. L., Poplau, S., & Anderson, R. T. (2017). Healthcare provider relational quality is associated with better self-management and less treatment burden in people with multiple chronic conditions. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1635–1646. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S145942
12. Heilat, H. B., Gharaibeh, M. K., Shtaiyat, W. M., Gharaibeh, R. S., Ananbeh, A. M., Baniyaseen, M. J., Alsharaydeh, S. M., Alqawaba’h, A. B., Alzu’bi, E. A., Amayreh, N. G., & Aldawagreh, R. R. (2025). Patients’ satisfaction with services provided by family physicians at the Comprehensive Healthcare Centers in Northern Jordan. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 32(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_185_24
13. Heinrich, C. J. (2012). Measuring public sector performance and effectiveness. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 32–49). SAGE Publications.
14. Jackson, P. M. (1993). Public service performance evaluation: A strategic perspective. Public Money & Management, 13(4), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969309387784
15. Kim, S., Rho, E., & Teo, Y. X. J. (2024). Citizen satisfaction research in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(5), 460–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241237488
16. Lerch, S. P., Hänggi, R., Bussmann, Y., & Lörwald, A. (2024). A model of contributors to a trusting patient-physician relationship: A critical review using a systematic search strategy. BMC Primary Care, 25, 194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02432-2
17. Li, B., & Turnbull, M. (2024). The role of family doctors in developing primary care systems in Asia: A systematic review of qualitative research conducted in middle-income countries 2010–2020. BMC Primary Care, 25, 346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02559-2
18. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
19. Martin, S., & Smith, P. C. (2005). Multiple public service performance indicators: Toward an integrated statistical approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui036
20. Ojukwu, C. K., Osagie, T. O., & Ajemba, M. N. (2026). Patients’ perceptions and experiences of family medicine practice as a driver for public healthcare service delivery and provision. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 16(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2026.16.2.0039
21. Osborne, S. P., Nasi, G., & Powell, M. (2021). Beyond co-production: Value creation and public services. Public Administration, 99(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12718
22. Özyıldız, K. H., & Alkan, A. (2022). Hekim sahiplenme: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 25(1), 209–232.
23. Peck, J., & Luangrath, A. W. (2023). A review and future avenues for psychological ownership in consumer research. Consumer Psychology Review, 6(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1084
24. Pidd, M. (2012). Measuring the performance of public services: Principles and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791550
25. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
26. Qin, Z., Liu, B., Cao, Y., Xu, C., & Zhang, J. (2025). Citizens’ expectations about public services: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1123. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05357-y
27. Smith, P. C., & Street, A. (2005). Measuring the efficiency of public services: The limits of analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 168(2), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00355.x
28. Şen, E. T., & Berk, H. Ö. S. (2022). Hasta memnuniyeti kısa değerlendirme formu’nun (HMKDF) Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(43), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1057465
29. Tarrant, C., Dixon-Woods, M., Colman, A. M., & Stokes, T. (2010). Continuity and trust in primary care: A qualitative study informed by game theory. The Annals of Family Medicine, 8(5), 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1164
30. Topuz, İ., Nal, M., Durmuş, V., & Bektaş, G. (2025). Trust in the healthcare system as a predictor of patient satisfaction: A cross-sectional survey in Türkiye’s primary care setting. BMC Public Health, 25, 3887. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25117-6
31. Valentijn, P. P., Schepman, S. M., Opheij, W., & Bruijnzeels, M. A. (2013). Understanding integrated care: A comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 13, e010. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.886
32. Wilson, R., French, M., Hesselgreaves, H., Lowe, T., & Smith, M. (2024). New development: Relational public services—reform and research agenda. Public Money & Management, 44(6), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2024.2344902
33. Wu, Q., Jin, Z., & Wang, P. (2022). The relationship between the physician-patient relationship, physician empathy, and patient trust. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37(6), 1388–1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07008-9