Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Health system responsiveness reflects how well healthcare services meet patients’ non-medical expectations, including respect for dignity, confidentiality, and prompt attention. This study evaluates the responsiveness of rural and urban health centers in Zabol, Southeast of Iran, from the Perspective of Patients, to identify strengths and areas requiring improvement. Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 2023 among 528 patients attending rural and urban comprehensive health service centers in Zabol, Southeast of Iran. Data were collected using the World Health Organization Health System Responsiveness questionnaire, covering dimensions including prompt attention, dignity, communication, autonomy, confidentiality, choice of provider, and physical environment. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 with descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA. Results: The overall mean responsiveness score was 3.47 ± 0.30, indicating a good level of responsiveness (69.4%). The highest scores were observed for choice of provider (3.92 ± 1.09), dignity (3.78 ± 0.62), physical environment (3.69 ± 0.64), and autonomy (3.53 ± 0.74). Moderate scores were reported for clear communication (3.34 ± 0.67), confidentiality (3.23 ± 0.79), and prompt attention (2.85 ± 0.88). Gender was significantly associated with autonomy, while insurance status showed significant associations with autonomy and physical environment (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed across education levels. Conclusion: Health system responsiveness in rural and urban health centers of Zabol was generally perceived as good. However, prompt attention, communication clarity, and confidentiality require targeted improvement. Strengthening these dimensions may enhance patient satisfaction and support equitable, patient-centered healthcare delivery in underserved areas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saravani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: