Does eWOM influence destination trust and travel intention: a medical tourism perspective

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Psychometrics properties of the research measures.

Scale items	Loadings	Mean (S.D)
eWOM (α = 0.88; CR = 0.89; AVE = 0.61)
I often read other medical tourists’ online travel reviews to know what destinations make good impressions on others.	0.73	3.88(1.07)
To make sure I choose the right medical destination, I often read other medical tourists’ online travel reviews.	0.89	3.97(0.96)
I often consult other medical tourists’ online travel reviews to help me choose a good medical destination.	0.77	3.99(0.92)
I frequently gather information from tourists’ online travel reviews before I travel to a certain medical destination.	0.79	4.08(1.03)
If I don’t read tourists’ online travel reviews when I travel to a medical destination, I worry about my decision.	-*	-*
When I travel to a medical destination, tourists’ online travel reviews make me confident in travelling to the destination.	0.70	4.18(0.91)
Destination trust (α = 0.87; CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.55)
Turkey as a medical destination meets my expectations.	-*	-*
I feel confidence with Turkish hospitals.	0.61	4.06(0.82)
I will not be disappointed with Turkey’s healthcare services.	-*	-*
Turkish hospitals guarantee satisfaction.	0.82	4.13(0.83)
Turkish hospitals would be honest and sincere in addressing my concerns	0.82	4.17(0.78)
I could rely on Turkish hospitals to solve my medical problems.	0.82	4.01(0.84)
Turkish hospitals would make any effort to satisfy me.	0.68	4.03(0.87)
Turkish hospitals would compensate me in some way in case of injuries after service.	0.66	3.90(0.95)
Intention to Travel (α = 0.90; CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.75)
I predict I will visit Turkish hospitals in the future.	0.94	4.11(1.09)
I would visit Turkey rather than any other medical destination.	0.81	3.86(1.02)
If I need medical attention I think, I will visit Turkish hospitals in the future.	0.85	4.07(1.06)

Notes: CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; α, Cronbach’s alpha.

^* Dropped items during factor analysis. KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.84; Bartletts’ Test of Sphericity = 2041.4, df = 91, p < 0.001.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations of study variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3
1. eWOM	4.02	0.80	-
2. Destination Trust	4.05	0.67	0.429^**	-
3. Travel intention	4.01	0.97	390^**	0.597^**	-

Note: Composite scores for each variable were computed by averaging respective item scores.

^** Correlations are significant at the .01 level.

Table 3. Maximum likelihood estimates for the research variables (n = 216).

Exogenous variables	Endogenous variables	Estimates	Standardised estimates	Standard error	t- value	R^2
eWOM	Travel intention	0.196	0.164	.071	2.740*	0.152
eWOM	Destination trust	0.355	0.429	.051	6.187**	0.184
Destination trust	Travel intention	0.762	0.527	.086	8.803**	0.356

^* Significant at the p < 0.05 level (two-tailed).

^** Significant at the p < 0.001 level (two-tailed).

Table 4. Total, direct and indirect effect of the research variables.

Exogenous variables	Endogenous variables	Total Effect	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect
eWOM	Travel intention	0.466	0.196	0.270
eWOM	Destination trust	0.355	0.355	0.000
Destination trust	Travel intention	0.762	0.762	0.000

Table 5. Multi-group moderation analysis.

Exogenous variables	Endogenous variables	Male (n=100)β(t)	Female (n=116)β(t)	X^2 (p)	Decision
eWOM 	Intention to travel	0.178(1.24)	0.181(2.63^**)	0.00 (p =0.98)	Rejected
eWOM 	Destination trust	0.474(5.46^***^)	0.289(4.61^***)	2.94 (p <0.08)	Accepted
Destination Trust	Intention to travel	0.578(3.98^***)	0.931(9.93^***)	4.12 (p <0.05)	Accepted

^** Significant at the p < 0.05 level (two-tailed); t ≥ 1.96.

^*** Significant at the p < 0.001 level (two-tailed); t ≥ 3.291.