Assignment Description A reputable hospital has high quality ratings from patient satisfaction surveys but is still losing market share. For many years, health care organizations, as well as traditional businesses, have been frustrated that high customer satisfaction scores do not necessarily lead to higher levels of profitability or sales. Prepare a report examining this phenomenon that address the following elements: Evaluate and explain inconsistency between customer satisfaction scores and profitability and why it tends to exist in health care organizations. Apply the statistical procedures discussed in class to support (or refute) the inconsistency. Assess price vs. quality of services as well as the impact of insurance or managed care contracts on a hospital's market share, regardless of patient satisfaction levels. Explain how you could use high patient satisfaction results to your advantage when negotiating a new managed care contract for the hospital. Discuss ethical issues involved when presenting results. Discuss how qualitative and quantitative data can be used to help this hospital improve market share. The body of the resultant report should be 5–7 pages and include at least 5 relevant peer-reviewed academic or professional references published within the past 5 years. Library Resources: Statistical Analysis 1 Below is a list of articles and summary descriptions on effective communication in health care. Click here to use the online library to search for the complete articles. Article 1 The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of health care interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomized controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognized as potential threats to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. This update reviews and summarizes the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible, of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding the publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had higher odds of being fully reported as compared to nonsignificant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2–4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, it was found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. It was decided not to undertake meta-analysis because of the differences between studies. This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publica ...