Satisfaction with traditional counter versus value-added services for prescription claims in a Malaysian Tertiary Hospital

Objectives To compare patient satisfaction with traditional counter services (TCSs) and three types of value-added services (VASs) for prescription refills including call-and-collect, drive-through and mail pharmacy services. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study. Telephone interviews were conducted with randomly selected patients who used either TCS (n = 103) or VAS (n = 105) to collect their refills in the first 6 months of 2013. A questionnaire containing two domains (general and technical aspects) with 10 statements was used. Respondents were instructed to indicate a score (ranging from 1 to 5) that reflected degree of their agreement with each statement. Adjusted satisfaction scores of two groups were compared using analysis of covariance models. Predictors for satisfaction with both services were found using linear regression models. Key findings Compared with TCS users, more VAS users had tertiary education (52.4 versus 21.4%; P < 0.001) and monthly income higher than MYR3000 (33.3 versus 4.9%; P < 0.001). Based on adjusted mean satisfaction scores, VAS users were generally more satisfied (44.63 versus 41.49, P < 0.001). Three types of VAS did not differ in adjusted mean satisfaction scores (P = 0.805). Mail pharmacy users were less satisfied with their expenditure on prescription refills than those using call-and-collect services (4.01 versus 4.62; P = 0.010). Age (b = −0.07; P = 0.013) and female gender (b = −2.38; P = 0.020) had significant linear relationships with satisfaction scores in TCS group. Income (b = 2.60; P = 0.018) was a significant predictor for satisfaction with VAS. Conclusions Results demonstrated the strengths of VAS over TCS in improving patient satisfaction. Variations in satisfaction levels among services may require a review of their effectiveness from policy perspectives.