Author(s)

Dan Yang ¹, Mimi Xiao ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ Research Center for Medical and Social Development, School of Public Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

Corresponding Author

Mimi Xiao

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates medical service quality in China using the Structure–Process–Outcome (SPO) framework. An index system covering healthcare resource allocation, service processes, and health outcomes was developed, with indicator weights determined by the entropy method. The overall quality score is 5.99, suggesting a moderately high level. However, a substantial urban–rural gap persists—urban residents score 6.34 on average, compared to only 2.19 for rural residents. The structure dimension receives the lowest score, indicating that resource allocation remains a key constraint. While urban quality varies little across regions, rural areas consistently show low levels. These findings highlight the need to strengthen rural healthcare infrastructure and workforce to promote balanced development.

KEYWORDS

Medical Service Quality, Structure–Process–Outcome Model, Entropy Method, Urban–Rural Disparity, Medical Quality Evaluation

CITE THIS PAPER

Dan Yang, Mimi Xiao. Research on Medical Service Quality Evaluation from the Perspective of Structure-Process-Outcome. MEDS Public Health and Preventive Medicine (2026). Vol. 6, No.1, 54-59. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/phpm.2026.060107.

REFERENCES

[1] Zhou M. Assessing regional disparities and trends in health resource allocation from sub-provincial cities in China[J]. Annals of Medicine, 2025, 57(1): 2522962.
[2] Liu Y, Lu C, Sheng J, et al. Policy practice for narrowing urban–rural healthcare gaps: determinants and implementation path of the urban doctors servicing rural areas policy in Beijing, China[J]. Frontiers in Public Health, 2025, 13: 1456142.
[3] Organization W H. Quality of care: a process for making strategic choices in health systems[M]. World Health Organization, 2006.
[4] Donabedian, Avedis. The quality of care: how can it be assessed?[J]. Jama, 1988, 260(12): 1743-1748.
[5] Kunkel S, Rosenqvist U, Westerling R. The structure of quality systems is important to the process and outcome, an empirical study of 386 hospital departments in Sweden[J]. BMC health services research, 2007, 7(1): 104.
[6] Yi Y U N. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment[J]. Journal of Environmental sciences, 2006, 18(5): 1020-1023.
[7] Donabedian A. The quality of medical care: a concept in search of a definition[J]. The Journal of family practice, 1979, 9(2): 277-284.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• MEDS Clinical Medicine
  
  
• Journal of Neurobiology and Genetics
  
  
• Medical Imaging and Nuclear Medicine
  
  
• Bacterial Genetics and Ecology
  
  
• Transactions on Cancer
  
  
• Journal of Biophysics and Ecology
  
  
• Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary
  
  
• Academic Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
  
  
• Transactions on Cell and Developmental Biology
  
  
• Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology
  
  
• Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine
  
  
• Hematology and Stem Cell
  
  
• Journal of Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Engineering
  
  
• MEDS Basic Medicine
  
  
• MEDS Stomatology
  
  
• MEDS Chinese Medicine
  
  
• Journal of Enzyme Engineering
  
  
• Advances in Industrial Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
  
  
• Bacteriology and Microbiology
  
  
• Advances in Physiology and Pathophysiology
  
  
• Journal of Vision and Ophthalmology
  
  
• Frontiers of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  
  
• Digestive Disease and Diabetes
  
  
• Advances in Immunology and Vaccines
  
  
• Nanomedicine and Drug Delivery
  
  
• Cardiology and Vascular System
  
  
• Pediatrics and Child Health
  
  
• Journal of Reproductive Medicine and Contraception
  
  
• Journal of Respiratory and Lung Disease
  
  
• Journal of Bioinformatics and Biomedicine