Expectation–perception gaps in healthcare service quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis toward service design–oriented healthcare evaluation

Clicks: 5
ID: 329466
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #135 of 144 articles by views in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SERVQUAL model is widely used to evaluate healthcare service quality; however, evidence regarding expectation-perception gaps remains fragmented across healthcare settings. Existing studies have primarily interpreted these gaps as indicators of patient dissatisfaction, potentially overlooking broader challenges in healthcare service delivery. This study aimed to quantify SERVQUAL expectation-perception gaps across healthcare settings and explore their implications for healthcare quality evaluation from a service design perspective. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline. Electronic databases were searched from inception to January 2026. Studies applying the SERVQUAL model in healthcare settings and reporting quantitative expectation-perception data were eligible. Twenty-five studies involving 9,640 participants were included. Random-effects meta-analysis using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation was performed to calculate pooled mean differences (MDs) after scores were harmonized to a common five-point scale. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: A statistically significant average negative expectation-perception gap was identified across healthcare settings (MD = -0.578; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.781 to - 0.376; 95% prediction interval (PI), -1.662 to 0.505; p < 0.001). Significant average negative gaps were observed across all five SERVQUAL dimensions. The largest pooled gaps were identified for Assurance (MD = -0.628), Reliability (MD = -0.627), and Responsiveness (MD = -0.616), followed by Empathy (MD = -0.534) and Tangibles (MD = -0.489). Regional subgroup analyses demonstrated substantial geographic variation in pooled expectation-perception gaps. Although substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 99.74%), leave-one-out sensitivity analyses indicated that the direction and statistical significance of the pooled estimate were not materially altered by omission of any individual study. Funnel plot asymmetry was detected; however, this pattern may reflect both small-study effects and substantial between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: An average negative SERVQUAL expectation-perception gap was observed across the included studies, with the largest pooled mean gaps occurring in Assurance, Reliability, and Responsiveness. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the extreme between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals crossing the null, and the predominance of cross-sectional evidence. The observed gaps may reflect context-dependent service delivery misalignments involving communication, coordination, responsiveness, and patient journeys. A service design perspective may therefore complement conventional healthcare quality evaluation and support context-sensitive, patient-centred quality improvement.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214044464 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Li-Yu Tseng, Kevin C. Tseng
Journal International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/intqhc/mzag151
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzag151
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.