Market segmentation in the health tourism industry: a systematic review of approach and criteria

ABSTRACT

Given the rapid growth of the medical tourism industry worldwide, competition among different countries to increase market share has risen sharply. The success of this industry largely depends on the correct segmentation of the market and the right choice of target segments. There are numerous approaches for market segmentation, each of which has its pros and cons. This study, therefore, aimed to compare and contrast the strengths, limitations, and practical considerations of different approaches, variables, and statistical techniques employed for the health market segmentation. Moreover, a framework to segment the health tourism market is ultimately recommended. This systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA checklist in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Checklist. We retrieved 239 articles, and finally, 22 articles were eligible and included in the final analysis. The majority of studies (n = 20) applied posteriori approaches for market segmentation, except two, which applied a priori and a mix approach. Profile-based and value-based variables were used for market segmentation in 13 and 9 studies, respectively. The majority of reviewed articles employed a two-step clustering with hierarchical clustering (ward algorithm) (n = 14) or neural network clustering (SOM) (n = 1), and non-hierarchical clustering (K-means algorithm) (n = 15), and comparatively a smaller number employed a single method for clustering (n = 7). This effort reviewed several market segmentation approaches and concluded that a combined approach and value-based variable might better serve health tourism market segmentation.

KEYWORDS:

• Clustering
• market segmentation
• medical tourism
• health tourism
• marketing

Acknowledgments

This study was a part of a research project which was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Reference No; IR.TBZMED.REC.1400.021.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences: [Grant Number 65970].