Volume 16, Issue 6 (September 2022)
Qom Univ Med Sci J 2022, 16(6): 500-515 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Azari H, Roodsaz H, Rezaei Manesh B, Seyed Naghavi M A. Identify Components of Bureauphobia Attitude in Qom Hospitals (With Qualitative Research Approach). Qom Univ Med Sci J 2022; 16 (6) :500-515
URL: http://journal.muq.ac.ir/article-1-3514-en.html
URL: http://journal.muq.ac.ir/article-1-3514-en.html
1- Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran. ,habibroodsaz@yahoo.com
2- Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran. ,
Abstract: (980 Views)
Background and Objectives: Studies in various fields of healthcare seeks to gain the trust of citizens by providing more favorable services. Despite the generality of this view, Bureauphobia as a new attitude in the field of behavior, questioned these studies. The current study aims to identify the components of bureauphobia in in people referred to public hospitals in Qom, Iran.
Methods: This is a qualitative study using thematic analysis. The study population consists of all people referred to public Hospitals in Qom province. Of these, 190 were selected and interviewed. The interview transcribes were analyzed in three stages: descriptive coding, interpretive coding, and identifying main themes.
Results: The analysis led to the formation of 131 descriptive codes, 50 interpretive codes and 10 main themes. The results showed that direct experiences, personality, role/ example, the political system governing public bureaucracy, social capital, malfunction of the bureaucracy, intrinsic features of the public sector, moneyism, moral values, and social justice were the components of bureauphobia.
Conclusion: People with bureauphobia have a pessimistic view. Satisfaction with the services provided by public hospitals does not necessarily lead to trust in these centers. Some people are constantly exposed to negative opinions about public hospitals; hence, their attitudes towards public hospitals are negative and biased.
Methods: This is a qualitative study using thematic analysis. The study population consists of all people referred to public Hospitals in Qom province. Of these, 190 were selected and interviewed. The interview transcribes were analyzed in three stages: descriptive coding, interpretive coding, and identifying main themes.
Results: The analysis led to the formation of 131 descriptive codes, 50 interpretive codes and 10 main themes. The results showed that direct experiences, personality, role/ example, the political system governing public bureaucracy, social capital, malfunction of the bureaucracy, intrinsic features of the public sector, moneyism, moral values, and social justice were the components of bureauphobia.
Conclusion: People with bureauphobia have a pessimistic view. Satisfaction with the services provided by public hospitals does not necessarily lead to trust in these centers. Some people are constantly exposed to negative opinions about public hospitals; hence, their attitudes towards public hospitals are negative and biased.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
مدیریت بهداشتی
Received: 2022/07/5 | Accepted: 2022/08/1 | Published: 2022/09/1
Received: 2022/07/5 | Accepted: 2022/08/1 | Published: 2022/09/1
References
1. Van Ryzin GG. Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust. Public Perform Manage Rev. 2007; 30(4):521-35. [DOI:10.2753/PMR1530-9576300403] [DOI:10.2753/PMR1530-9576300403]
2. Badri M, Al Khaili M, Al Mansoori RL. Quality of service, expectation, satisfaction and trust in public institutions: the Abu Dhabi citizen satisfaction survey. Asian J Polit Sci. 2015; 23(3):420-47. [DOI:10.1080/02185377.2015.1055773] [DOI:10.1080/02185377.2015.1055773]
3. Del Pino E, Calzada I, Díaz‐Pulido JM. Conceptualizing and explaining bureauphobia: Contours, scope, and determinants. Public Adm Rev. 2016; 76(5):725-36. [DOI:10.1111/puar.12570] [DOI:10.1111/puar.12570]
4. Peeters R, Nieto-Morales F. The Inequality Machine: An exploration of the costs and causes of bureaucratic dysfunction in Mexico. Dev Adm. 2021; 3:19-30. [DOI:10.46996/dina.v3i1.5807] [DOI:10.46996/dina.v3i1.5807]
5. Cremades Guisado Á, Cancelado Franco H. Intelligence as a bureaucratic organization: Dysfunctions of the Weberian model. Revista Científica General José María Córdova. 2021; 19(34):479-496. [DOI:10.21830/19006586.677] [DOI:10.21830/19006586.677]
6. Canton J, Scott KM, Glue P. Optimal treatment of social phobia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2012; 8:203-15. [DOI:10.2147/NDT.S23317] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.2147/NDT.S23317]
7. Goodsell CT. The new case for bureaucracy. London: SAGE; 2015. [DOI:10.4135/9781483395739] [DOI:10.4135/9781483395739]
8. Marvel JD, Resh WG. Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. Am Rev Public Adm. 2015; 45(3):281-310. [DOI:10.1177/0275074013492008] [DOI:10.1177/0275074013492008]
9. Vigoda-Gadot E, Shoham A, Vashdi DR. Bridging bureaucracy and democracy in Europe: A comparative study of perceived managerial excellence, satisfaction with public services, and trust in governance. European :union: Politics. 2010; 11(2):289-308. [DOI:10.1177/1465116510363657] [DOI:10.1177/1465116510363657]
10. Kaufman H. Fear of bureaucracy: A raging pandemic. Public Adm Rev. 1981; 41(1):1-9. [DOI:10.2307/975718] [DOI:10.2307/975718]
11. Berman EM. Dealing with cynical citizens. In: Local Government Management: Current Issues and Best Practices. London: Routledge; 2003. [Link]
12. Amiri m, Pourezzat A, Jafari D, Hashemi S. [In search of the Iranian bureaucracy (Persian)]. Surah. 2011; (54-55):124-30. [Link]
13. Farzadi F, Mafton F, Aeeinparast A, Azin A , Sepideh O, Katayoun J, et al. Determinants of satisfaction with health care system: a population-based study from Iran (Persian)]. Payesh. 2011; 10(3):323-30. [DOI: 20.1001.1.16807626.1390.10.3.2.1]
14. Rouhafza M, Adhami Moghadam F, Sahebalzamani M. [Assessment the relationship between patient satisfaction and quality of hospital services based on SERVQUAL Model in the hospitals related to Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch in 2015 (Persian)]. Med Sci. 2016; 26(3):173-79. [Link]
15. Ansari H, Ebadi fard F, Mollasadeghi G. [Patient satisfaction in hospitals under the auspices of Iran University of Medical Sciences (Persian)]. Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2004; 11(3):38-45. [Link]
16. Salehikordabadi S, Rezaei M, kelidbari H. [Study of service quality and customers satisfaction in governmental organizations (case study of Gilan province) (Persian)]. Police Human Dev. 2010; 7(33):61-86. [Link]
17. Mosaei M, Fatemi M, Nikbin F. [Investigating the factors and strategies for observing patient rights (Persian)]. J Soc Welf. 2010; 10(39):55-84. [Link]
18. Feizi A, Mohammadi R, Nikravesh M. [Factors Causing Patient's Trust in Nurse from Patients' Perspective (Persian)]. RJMS. 2006; 13(52):177-187. [Link]
19. Zaboli R, seyedjavadi M, salari J, aliaffje A. [A Survey on the Extent and Causes of Patients Complaints in Hospitals and Medical Centers Affiliated of Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Persian)]. Iran J Forensic Med. 2014; 20(4):193-200. [Link]
20. Barnum H, Kutzin J. Public hospitals in developing countries: Resource use, cost, financing. London: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1993. [Link]
21. Roulston K, Choi M. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. London: SAGE; 2018. [Link]
22. Ranjbar H, Haghdost A, Salsali M, Khoshdel A. [Sampling in qualitative research: A guide to getting started (Persian)]. Ann Milhealth Sci Res. 2012; 10(3):238-50. [Link]
23. King N, Horrocks C, Brooks J. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2019. [Link]
24. AbediJafari H, Taslimi M, Faghihi A, Shikh M. Theme and theme network analysis: A simple and efficient method for explaining patterns in qualitative data (Persian)]. Strateg Manage Thought. 2011; 5(2):151-98. [Link]
25. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. USA: Jossey-Bass; 1981. [Link]
26. Goodsell CT. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. New Jersey: Chatham House; 1994. [Link]
27. Molavi Z, Tahmasebi R, Danaei Fardeh H, Hamidi A. [Bureauphobia: The ambivalentl look of citizens on public services (Persian)]. J Public Adm. 2017; 9(2):213-34. [DOI:10.22059/jipa.2017.240217.2078]
28. Frederickson HG. The spirit of public administration. USA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. [Link]
29. Tyler TR. Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law. 2001; 19(2):215-35. [DOI:10.1002/bsl.438] [PMID] [DOI:10.1002/bsl.438]
30. Goel S, Mason W, Watts DJ. Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. J Pers Soc Psych. 2010; 99(4):611. [DOI:10.1037/a0020697] [PMID] [DOI:10.1037/a0020697]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2008-1375
pISSN: 1735-7799
Email: journal[at]muq.ac.ir
j.mua.ac[at]gmail.com
