A systematic literature review on transformative practices and well-being outcomes in healthcare service

Veronica Ungaro (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy)
Laura Di Pietro (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy)
Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy)
Maria Francesca Renzi (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy)

Journal of Service Theory and Practice

ISSN: 2055-6225

Article publication date: 13 February 2024

Issue publication date: 15 May 2024

751

Abstract

Purpose

The paper aims to investigate the practices facilitating the transformation of healthcare services, understanding the resulting outcomes in terms of well-being and uplifting changes. a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on analyzing the healthcare sector under the transformative service research (TSR) theoretical domain is conducted to achieve this goal.

Design/methodology/approach

Employing a structured SLR developed based on the PRISMA protocol (Pickering and Byrne, 2014; Pickering et al., 2015) and using Scopus and WoS databases, the study identifies and analyzes 49 papers published between 2021 and 2022. Content analysis is used to classify and analyze the papers.

Findings

The SLR reveals four transformative practices (how) within the healthcare sector under the TSR domain, each linked to specific well-being outcomes (what). The analysis shows that both practices and outcomes are mainly patient-related. An integrative framework for transformative healthcare service is presented and critically examined to identify research gaps and define the trajectory for the future development of TSR in healthcare. In addition, managerial implications are provided to guide practitioners.

Originality/value

This research is among the first to analyze TSR literature in the context of healthcare. The study critically examines the TSR’s impact on the sector’s transformation, providing insights for future research and offering a roadmap for healthcare practitioners to facilitate uplifting changes.

Keywords

Citation

Ungaro, V., Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti Mugion, R. and Renzi, M.F. (2024), "A systematic literature review on transformative practices and well-being outcomes in healthcare service", Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 432-463. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2023-0071

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Veronica Ungaro, Laura Di Pietro, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion and Maria Francesca Renzi

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Healthcare is, “after all, a service” (Manary et al., 2013), and due to its multi-actor nature and emphasis on the welfare of the individual, family, community and society, it is one of the most complicated examples of conceptual development in a service system (Chen et al., 2020). Patients are increasingly viewed as service consumers rather than just as patients (Anderson et al., 2018). They assume this role from their initial interaction with healthcare service providers and continue throughout the treatment process.

Humanity’s centrality in healthcare sets it apart from other service industries. Patients and healthcare professionals are both humans and their humanity is crucial during the care process (JW, 2011; Oben, 2020). Taking care of the patient’s physical, psychological (emotional/mental), social and spiritual health needs is the primary reason for the healthcare industry’s existence (Oben, 2020). In the transformative service research (TSR) field, healthcare services are defined transformative by design since they have a clear mission directly related to the well-being of people (Rosenbaum et al., 2011).

In this context, the present study aims to analyze the practices facilitating the transformation of healthcare services, understanding the resulting outcomes in terms of individual (i.e. patients, families, healthcare professionals) and collective well-being.

In recent years, the service community has shown increasing interest in TSR (Anderson and Ostrom, 2015), which has been identified as a key service research priority (Ostrom et al., 2015). It aims to analyze “the integration of consumer and service research that centers on creating uplifting changes and improvements in the well-being of consumer entities: individuals (consumers and employees), communities and the ecosystem” (Anderson et al., 2013, p. 2) and how to “reduce suffering” (Nasr and Fisk, 2019). Despite the growing interest of the scientific community in this topic, many critical questions about the link between services and well-being remain unanswered (Anderson and Ostrom, 2015).

Patient-centered care (PCC) has recently emerged as an attempt to enhance the quality of care by putting the customer (and their family) at the center of decisions impacting their health (Anderson et al., 2018). It involves treating the patient as a person and not as a collection of diseases and in addressing his/her needs, redefining the relationship between the user and the doctor/provider (Epstein, 2000; Pelzang, 2010). The objectives of this type of approach are related to those of TSR (Anderson et al., 2013, 2018). According to the TSR research paradigm, healthcare interactions can create uncertainty, vulnerability, powerlessness and guilt in users (Galarza-Winton et al., 2013; Tallandini and Scalembra, 2006). Healthcare providers are important in improving the well-being of individuals and communities by helping bridge gaps and limitations in users' skills and resources (Rahman et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2013). Indeed, healthcare represents a fertile field for TSR (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007) and in-depth studies and further investigation are needed (Rai, 2018). Although healthcare services are certainly among the most studied fields within the TSR domain (Sweeney et al., 2015), the fragmented literature calls for synthesizing the knowledge to provide useful implications for practitioners and future research directions for scholars. This is supported by Alkire et al. (2020) who noted that TSR has high potential for practical implications in response to the growing need for managerial guidance (Fisk and Alkire, 2021), especially in the healthcare sector. Therefore, exploring how the TSR can contribute to interpreting and understanding the ongoing transformation is crucial (Anderson et al., 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2011).

A systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to fulfill the study’s purpose. While numerous SLRs have explored various aspect of TSR (i.e. Rahman, 2021; Islam et al., 2022; Previte and Robertson, 2019; McCall-Kennedy et al., 2017) none have investigated the transformative practices (TPs) leading to uplifting changes through the healthcare service provision and the related well-being outcomes.

This study contributes to the existing literature by identifying four TPs and the connected well-being outcomes. Moreover, an integrative framework for transformative healthcare service is presented and critically examined. The analysis enabled highlighting that both TPs and uplifting changes are mainly patient-related and allows defining the trajectory for the future development of TSR in healthcare. Furthermore, the study provides a rich stream of managerial implications that may inspire healthcare systems actors to catalyze positive change in society.

The paper begins with an overview of TSR and its contextualization within healthcare services. Subsequently, a description of the SLR methodological approach is provided, followed by a discussion of the bibliometric characteristics of publications and SLR findings. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the SLR outcomes, and proposes implications for service providers and policymakers, along with a research agenda.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Transformative service research

The theoretical foundations of the current study are inextricably intertwined with the field of TSR and its approach to addressing and analyzing healthcare services. The analysis of how services can enhance individual and collective well-being has received increasing attention in recent years due to the possible impact of service delivery strategies on society (La Placa et al., 2013; Anderson et al., 2013) and thanks to the emergence of TSR, which has contributed to the increase and improvement of the quality of these studies (Tang et al., 2016). The TSR has been identified as one of the most important research priorities (Ostrom et al., 2010, 2015), and it analyzes with an innovative point of view the field of services stressing the importance of indicators to measure well-being, such as physical and mental health, financial well-being and inclusion (Anderson and Ostrom, 2015; Anderson et al., 2013). Looking beyond the commercial intent of many services reveals their transformative potential (Rosenbaum et al., 2011).

TSR is based on the notion of a transformative service economy that improves relations between social, economic and environmental systems through respectful, collaborative and sustainable interactions (Rosenbaum et al., 2011). Services are defined as transformative when they are structured, long-term, sustainable and connected within an ecosystem, include the final beneficiaries in the management and planning processes, and co-create value (Letaifa et al., 2016). Therefore, the TSR aims to reduce human suffering and improve well-being by studying aspects of service that affect individuals and communities. It aims to develop strategies and innovations and redesign services to build a better future for all (Fisk et al., 2020). As Rosenbaum et al. (2011, p. 5) argued, TSR represents a “new area” of consumer and service research and must involve individual and collective issues, including micro and macro-level analysis. Different components of service design may result in positive improvements for consumer entities, especially vulnerable customers who face obstacles (Reynoso et al., 2015; Nasr and Fisk, 2019; Rahman, 2021). Services, such as healthcare and education, are called transformative by design because they have a clear transformative mission, while others, such as retail, hospitality and entertainment, are potentially transformative by impacting the well-being of individuals in unforeseen ways (Rosenbaum et al., 2011).

2.2 Healthcare services in the light of TSR

In the healthcare industry, the rise in expenditures is exerting pressure on national budgets in all developed nations due to aging populations, the development of novel medicines, technological advancements and increased customer expectations (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). In addition, Western countries are facing a growing number of chronic diseases, which determines the need to identify new business models to provide healthcare services (Institute of Medicine, 2001; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). Inadequate health systems have become a major global problem that many countries are experiencing (Sawang et al., 2019). The imperative is for healthcare to become more effective, efficient and equitable for all. The transition to more resilient health systems is delicate and complex, it requires radical changes in how patients are viewed and a systemic and multidisciplinary approach (Pereno and Eriksson, 2020). Health is not only integral to economic prosperity, but also to a socially productive life and personal comfort (United Nations, 2018).

Health systems strive to meet the population needs by providing healthcare services to ensure people’s right to health and enable independent living by providing social care services (Pereno and Eriksson, 2020). Healthcare services are defined as “Any service which can contribute to improved health or the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of sick people and is not necessarily limited to medical services. Health services are often formally organized as a system of established institutions and organizations to supply services to respond to the needs and demands of the population within a defined financial and regulatory framework. Health services can include health education, health promotion, and environmental services such as housing, sanitation, etc., which have a known health benefit” (Roberts and World Health Organization, 1998).

Recently, a new approach, the PCC, has gained popularity, aiming to improve the quality of care by putting patients and their families at the center of decisions that impact their health (Anderson et al., 2018). Going far beyond goal-setting with patients, PCC is highly focused on considering their perspective and circumstances during the decision-making process (Ponte et al., 2003; Pelzang, 2010).

For these reasons, PCC is aligned with the purposes of TSR (Anderson et al., 2018). TSR researchers identify well-being and quality of life as the ultimate outcomes of a service, and healthcare is a very appropriate context for studying the relationships, dynamics and potential of TSR (Ostrom et al., 2015). In addition, health services have been identified by users as one of the most important services related to individual well-being (Ungaro et al., 2022) and have received increasing attention from researchers as they have been included among research priorities (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007; Ostrom et al., 2015).

Every human being, at some point in their lives, interacts with healthcare services which can directly impact their daily and long-term quality of life (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007; Danaher and Gallan, 2016; Anderson et al., 2018). Healthcare is considered an expert service system with a high level of expertise asymmetries between consumers and providers that extend beyond mere information asymmetry (Anderson et al., 2016). These services influence the lives of patients and families and personal experiences (Anderson et al., 2013). In this regard, healthcare providers can help create value for individuals and improve their well-being by helping them overcome physiological and psychological challenges (Anderson et al., 2013). The ability of a service to achieve well-being goals depends on how it is designed, particularly in the healthcare setting (Anderson et al., 2018). Consequently, many researchers emphasize the need to analyze healthcare systems to stimulate transformative changes at the individual and community levels (Ostrom et al., 2015).

3. Methodology

3.1 Systematic literature review objective

The present study applies a SLR methodology to fulfill its research aim and to respond to the call for studies from authors such as Alkire et al. (2020) and Fisk et al. (2020) to define guidelines and trajectories for service providers and policymakers. The SLR serves as a valuable tool to establish connections between studies and to comprehend how each one contributes to the specific domain (Rahman et al., 2020; Booth et al., 2012). Furthermore, this methodology enables the development of critical discussions by integrating extant literature, knowledge gaps and new theoretical frameworks (Paul and Criado, 2020; Marabelli and Newell, 2014). The SLR facilitates the identification of areas that warrant further investigation (Snyder, 2019) and the definition of trajectories for future research (Pasca et al., 2021). Moreover, it provides a more comprehensive overview of transformative practices and well-being outcomes compared to what could be achieved with a single empirical study.

The present SLR specifically aims to achieve three sequential purposes: (1) synthesize TSR literature focused on healthcare services and identify the main transformative practices and well-being outcomes; (2) critically examine the current level of knowledge generated under the TSR domain in the healthcare sector; (3) identify managerial implications and outline future research trajectories.

A systematic quantitative approach was used in the analysis (Pickering and Byrne, 2014; Pickering et al., 2015) to map, synthesize and review the currently available studies. This approach is used to identify what is known and define what is yet to be known (MacInnis, 2011), determine research gaps (Pickering et al., 2015) and identify critical elements of a phenomenon (Pasca et al., 2021). It allows summarizing existing literature by analyzing emerging findings (Snyder, 2019). It is “systematic” because the process used to select and identify papers is reproducible (Pickering and Byrne, 2014), robust and transparent (Tranfield et al., 2003; Mariani et al., 2018) and allows to summarize existing literature by investigating the emerged findings (Snyder, 2019).

3.2 Database, search query and inclusion criteria

The analysis used Scopus and ISI Web of Science (WoS) databases. Scopus, widely used in academic research (Macke and Genari, 2019), is particularly focused on social science content (Yang et al., 2017; Tarantino, 2006) and provides access to “reliable, robust and cross-checked data” (Wang et al., 2019, p. 166). WoS, one of the most widely used databases in socio-economic disciplines' (Di Vaio et al., 2020; Fink, 2019) has content comparable to Scopus (Hicks and Wang, 2011) but with a standard format that requires little or no data cleaning (Zupic and Čater, 2015).

The search queries for Scopus and WoS were structured as follows:

Scopus (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“transformative service research”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (healthcare) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (health*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health care”)

WoS (((TS=(Healthcare)) OR TS=(“health care”)) OR TS=(Health*)) AND TS=(“Transformative service research”)

To prevent the search from being overly restrictive and provide a comprehensive view, terms such as healthcare, health care, and health* were incorporated with “Transformative Service Research.” The search was addressed to the identified publications' titles, abstracts and keywords. A total of 220 studies emerged (92 from Scopus and 128 from WoS).

The following criteria regarding publication characteristics were set referring to the guidelines of Pickering and Byrne (2014) and Moher et al. (2009):

  1. Conference papers, book chapters, reviews and articles published in journals.

  2. Articles in the English language.

  3. No time limits were set.

3.3 PRISMA diagram, research outcomes and interpretation

A PRISMA flow chart, based on Moher et al. (2009), was created to depict the SLR process: identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion (Figure 1).

The initial 220 records identified dropped to 140 after the duplicate elimination. The studies were collected within an Excel spreadsheet (Følstad and Kvale, 2018), gathering the following information for each paper: title, authors, affiliation, abstract, keywords, year of publication, source, type of work (journal articles, conference proceedings, literature reviews or book chapters) and research approach. During the article screening, an additional restrictive inclusion criterion was set to consider only records focusing on health services, aligning with the definition provided by the WHO (Roberts and World Health Organization, 1998) and TSR. As a result, 74 full text were accepted for Eligibility and reviewed to identify the primary studies (Moher et al., 2009). The spreadsheet was supplemented with additional information: study approach (conceptual or empirical), data collection method, objective, results, conclusions, practices related to health services, actors involved, benefits, managerial and policy maker implications. Subsequently, 25 studies were excluded due to misalignment with the research focus. The final body of literature comprised 49 articles (Appendix).

Consistent with the research aim, the records were coded through content analysis (Pasca et al., 2021; Rahman, 2021; Eloranta and Turunen, 2015) to identify the healthcare sector’s main practices and outcomes recognized by the TSR literature. This process lead to the identification of four primary TPs and well-being outcomes for each actor category. Following Webster and Watson (2002), this step required first an author-centered analysis of the articles, then a concept-centred review and interpretation (Pasca et al., 2021).

4. Results

4.1 Bibliometric characteristics of publications

In this section, a description of the main characteristics of the reviewed publication is provided. The final 49 articles included in the analysis were published between 2011 and 2022, denoting a growing research community interest in the transformative role of healthcare services. As shown in Figure 2, the initial two studies were published in 2011. However, a more pronounced interest in exploring TSR in healthcare became evident from 2017 onwards.

The majority of the papers employed an empirical methodology (43, 86%), with a relatively equal distribution between qualitative (21, 41%) and quantitative (17, 35%) studies and a small number of mixed-method approaches (5, 10%), and only 14% are conceptual works (Figure 3). This demonstrates the efforts made by researchers to meet the demand for conducting empirical investigations, as Alkire et al. (2020) recommended.

By examining Table 1, it is clear that most of the studies (about 67%) were published in journals directly associated with service research; 24% in general management/marketing journals, and 8% in healthcare-specific journals. Although there are a few publications in the healthcare journals, it should be noted that the papers were published in recent years (2016–2019) indicating a growing interest in the TSR domain within the healthcare setting.

4.2 SLR findings

From the analysis and interpretation of the reviewed papers, the study coded and grouped “how” the TSR domain has contributed to supporting the transformation of healthcare services and “what” types of uplifting changes have been produced. Specifically, four primary TPs were identified, which outline how individual and collective well-being in healthcare service can be enhanced: Actors' empowerment and collaboration (TP1); Reorganization of service provision (TP2); Integration of non-medical supportive activities (TP3); and Development of technology-based healthcare solutions (Table 2). Furthermore, TPs were analyzed to identify the outcomes produced (what) and for which actor category.

4.2.1 Transformative practice 1: actors’ empowerment and collaboration

Patients are recognized as active co-creators, so they participate in designing and developing their care programs (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017; Pham et al., 2019). Moreover, healthcare services are complex service systems characterized by the interactions between multiple actors (Lam and Bianchi, 2019), such as frontline service employees (i.e. nurses), focal actors (patients), and transformative service mediators (i.e. families, which support the service cocreation) that must be managed to achieve optimal outcomes for all involved.

Healthcare is considered an expert service system, meaning a service with a high expertise asymmetry between the provider and the consumers (Anderson et al., 2016). In this context, patient responsibilization and active involvement in management of health outcomes have become crucial (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). Responsibilization determines a shift of risks and functions from providers to consumers (Harris and White, 2013). It relates to the consumer’s coproduction, namely the consumer’s provision of inputs (i.e. time and knowledge) connected with service production and delivery, going beyond the service provider’s activities (Azzari et al., 2021).

Studies have highlighted that coproduction and responsibilization determine positive service results (Gallan et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2010). Patients must be empowered and involved in their care program to enable autonomous activities and improve health and well-being. Empowerment and involvement enable autonomous activity leading to improved expertise, health-related outcomes and overall well-being (Azzari et al., 2021).

Interactions with other actors (i.e. families, employees and service providers) as well as engaging in value co-creation activities, positively impact patients’ ability to fulfill care program tasks and cope with their diseases. Value co-creation also leads to behavioral changes with positive effects on quality of life (Taiminen et al., 2020) and can influence the patient’s hedonic and eudaimonic well-being by enhancing autonomy, self-acceptance, purpose in life, positive relationships, environmental mastery, personal growth, happiness, pleasure and satisfaction (i.e. Lam and Bianchi, 2019; Sharma et al., 2017).

Patient’s interactions with staff, other patients and families can positively impact the attainment of care program goals, thanks to the support received from the various actors within the service system (Taiminen et al., 2020; Lam and Bianchi, 2019; Davey and Grönroos, 2019; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017 Chen et al., 2020; Black and Gallan, 2015; Gallan et al., 2019; O'Connor and Cook, 2020). For example, family involvement helps patients achieve their needs and increase their well-being while also improving family’s well-being, creating better relationships and fostering empathy and serenity (Groven et al., 2021; Lam and Bianchi, 2019; Kaartemo and Känsäkoski, 2018). An adequate resource integration can also improve the well-being of the entire network through the achievement of balanced centricity (Groven et al., 2021).

However, it is essential to consider patient involvement as a potential risk as it may lead to value co-destruction affecting the patient’s capacity to integrate resources (Azzari et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2016; Pham et al., 2019; Kaartemo and Känsäkoski, 2018; Jefferies et al., 2019; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). Poorly managed patient involvement could negatively impact well-being due to the burden of work deriving from service expectations and potential tensions (Hillebrand et al., 2015; Oertzen et al., 2018; Dean and Indrianti, 2020).

In summary, value co-production and co-creation represent key transformative practices for generating positive outcomes for patients and families. Coproduction refers to the involvement of consumers in the organization’s activities (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and service cocreation refers to the integration of resources between actors, both leading to increased individual and collective well-being (Groven et al., 2021; Sweeney et al., 2015; Engström and Elg, 2015). A description of the TP1 is provided in Table 3, while the outcomes generated are summarized in Figure 4.

4.2.2 Transformative practice 2: reorganization of service provision (spaces and performance)

The importance of service design in determining transformative effects is generally recognized by relevant authors in healthcare services (i.e. Rosenbaum et al., 2011; Ostrom et al., 2014; Rosenbaum, 2015; Ostrom et al., 2015).

Service design encompasses the planning of physical and non-physical elements in a service system, including people management, communication and structure, to improve interactions between service providers and consumers and to help achieve well-being (Goldstein et al., 2002; Teixeira et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2018).

Tangible aspects of the servicescape can positively affect patients' and communities' outcomes and the organization of the physical environment can help reduce stress and negative symptoms such as anxiety. Elements like greenery, exposure to natural light, decent safety, satisfactory rooms, suitable hygiene, art, visual music and adequate signage systems can generate positive effects on health and well-being (Hamed et al., 2016, 2017). Additionally, intangible features of the servicescape, designed to enhance socialization and interaction, are also key elements to be considered in the healthcare service design. Through restorative servicescapes, individuals experiment internal mechanisms which lead to the mitigation of negative feelings like stress, and fatigue with the development of better mood and attitude (Rosenbaum and Smallwood, 2013; El-Manstrly and Rosenbaum, 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2014). Healthcare services planned to consider social interactions and consumer engagement can have psychological benefits and trigger in patients and families more energy, personal productivity and better quality of life (Anderson et al., 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2011; Rosenbaum and Smallawood, 2013).

Moreover, it is important to determine how to provide quality healthcare (Kumbani et al., 2012; Adomah-Afari et al., 2019). Quality improvement of healthcare services (i.e. waiting time, professional skills, employees' behaviors) and a better service experience can increase patients' satisfaction and determine the patients' will to maintain a long-term relationship with the service providers with positive effects on their health and well-being outcomes (Adomah-Afari et al., 2019; Otalora et al., 2018; Sawang et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2017). It is demonstrated that the lack of service provision quality negatively impacts actors' perception of their well-being (Sawang et al., 2019). Patients and other actors struggle to evaluate healthcare services; hence, they usually use tangible items (i.e. staff, equipment, etc.) to assess the intangible service aspects (Severt et al., 2008; Zeithaml et al., 2009; Hamed et al., 2016). Hence, the environmental elements are key in evaluating healthcare facilities, which can directly impact the perception of service quality (Hamed et al., 2016; Berry et al., 2004). Patients and relatives also use attributes of interpersonal relations (such as effective listening, trust and respect) to assess healthcare services (Mosadeghrad, 2013). Davis et al. (2017) found that certain kinds of patients can evaluate the quality of healthcare services by considering two other variables besides the traditional SERVQUAL dimensions: the quality of the patient-provider relationship and fair processes.

Therefore, the design of healthcare services, meaning the coordination of the servicescape, service operations, management and social aspects with a human-centered view to improve customer and employee experience (Anderson et al., 2018), is essential for achieving transformative changes in the healthcare system. Table 4 and Figure 5 depicts the elements of TP2 and the related outcomes.

4.2.3 Transformative practice 3: integration of non-medical supportive activities

Several societal and service provider activities contribute to creating a supportive environment for patients and families in healthcare services. The analysis allows the authors to highlight that the social support that can be provided in different forms (i.e. adaptive reuse of public/private buildings, complementary care and online and face-to-face groups) can help patients in many ways. Indeed, it creates a sense of belonging and community, reducing the feeling of loneliness and fear, improves self-efficacy, mitigates inequalities and enhances the quality of life and service satisfaction, leading to better health-related outcomes and emotional and psychological well-being (i.e. Rosenbaum et al., 2021; Hunter-Jones et al., 2020; Lin and Chou, 2022). For example, in social support groups, patients can exchange their experiences in a safe environment, receiving and giving support, contributing to achieving positive individual and community results (Rosenbaum et al., 2021; Parkinson et al., 2017; Lin and Chou, 2022; Akareem et al., 2021). The development of physical and online spaces and ways in which patients and families can interact, exchanging information about the disease and sharing the emotional stress, may enable them to improve their well-being.

Moreover, healthcare service providers assist patients by performing different organizational efforts that help them overcome limitations and physiological and psychological challenges. Indeed, service providers support and socialization and transformative service approaches (such as service conversations) positively influence patient’s self-efficacy perception, agency, self-transformation, psychological freedom and outcome expectations and reduce stress and negative feelings determining improvements in individuals’ well-being (Rahman et al., 2020; Gopaldas et al., 2021; Hunter-Jones et al., 2020). These practices can also influence the well-being of healthcare employees (Rahman et al., 2020). In addition, when patients experience transitions and situations requiring great effort to achieve their goals, they can face unintended negative consequences such as stress, sacrifice and failure that can reduce their well-being and increase their vulnerability. Other elements may be cultural models and patients’ coping strategies (Mayer et al., 2019; Zayer et al., 2015) and, in this picture, healthcare service provider behavior can mitigate vulnerability by helping patients and families feel in control with positive benefits on their well-being (Robertson et al., 2021).

Providing additional resources for actors during the service experience can generate beneficial results (Parkinson et al., 2017; Rosenbaum et al., 2021). Emotional help and companionship provided by employees, patients and other actors are critical supportive resources that can impact health and quality of life by protecting people and mitigating negative feelings. In Table 5 and Figure 6, the description of the TP3 elements and outcomes are provided.

4.2.4 Transformative practice 4: development of technology-based healthcare solutions

Technologies have a pivotal role in healthcare as they facilitate the shift of patient behavior from passive to active (Rai, 2018). In recent years, the number of technologies dedicated to healthcare has increased, helping service providers monitor disease evolution, collect data and promote healthy behavior.

When appropriately applied, technologies can be used to improve patient’s experience, well-being and health outcomes. Innovative devices such as self-service technologies (i.e. pill dispensers) can be adopted to increase individual independence and performativity and allow patients to carry out previously restricted activities with favorable effects on health (Rai, 2018). In addition, applying innovative mechanics (i.e. gamification) in the care processes can help improve patient and family engagement. Gamified care practices can influence patients’ cognitive, emotional, utilitarian and experiential outcomes (Hammedi et al., 2017). Moreover, Online health services allowing remote monitoring of patients, prove beneficial for health and can be used to reach people who live in rural and remote areas (Islam et al., 2020).

Despite these benefits, providing adequate information to patients and allowing them to build the needed skills to deal with these innovations is crucial because inappropriate use can determine value co-destruction (Rai, 2018; Hammedi et al., 2017).

Therefore, new tools and digital platforms can improve service quality, clinical outcomes and actors’ satisfaction, reduce costs and narrow the gap between actors (SPs, medical staff and patients). This confirms the importance of technology in contributing to make a service transformative. Online and interactive platforms and digital tools facilitate engagement and interaction between the service providers and patients, and the co-creation processes. Technological innovations promote adopting a collaborative care model where patients actively manage healthcare processes and their diseases. Table 6 and Figure 7 summarize the elements and outcomes of the TP4.

5. Discussion and critical analysis of the SLR outcomes

The comprehensive analysis of the literature has resulted in the development of an integrative framework (Figure 8) that outlines the identified TPs, and their corresponding outcomes in terms of uplifting changes. These TPs serve as the means (how) to trigger and achieve transformation in the healthcare sector encompassing four key elements: actors’ empowerment and collaboration, 2. reorganization of service provision, 3. Integration of non-medical supportive activities and 4. Development of technology-based healthcare solutions. However, the analysis reveals that the literature produced under the TSR domain in the healthcare context primarily concentrates on the transformative analysis of a single actor, namely the patient and his/her well-being. The implementation and combination of the TPs -as shown in Figures 4–7 through the generation of a wide range of patients well-being outcomes (what), can lead to the development of a transformative healthcare service.

It has become evident that (TP1) involving the patient’s responsibilization and engagement in service coproduction and the facilitation of resources integration and cocreation between actors at the micro level (mainly between the service provider and patient) determines an increase in the actors’ and network’ well-being (i.e. patients’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being). Furthermore, TP2 highlights that the tangible and intangible aspects of the servicescape designed to address patients' and actors' needs and the service quality improvement contribute to reducing negative feelings and enhancing health-related outcomes, ultimately resulting in a higher quality of life. Thirdly, TP3 underscores the positive outcomes for well-being (i.e. sense of belonging, self-efficacy, agency) by incorporating supportive practices from society and service providers into healthcare services and promoting patients' social interactions. Finally, TP4 reveals that the integration of cutting-edge technologies and digital solutions into healthcare service provision generates positive results in terms of health and well-being for the patient including aspects such as. Independence, engagement and accessibility. However, it is crucial to note that this may also pose the risk of value co-destruction.

From a theoretical perspective, the SLR results reveal the challenges of critically analyzing the findings to identify potential limitations in the approaches adopted so far. Those critical issues may represent valuable opportunities for detecting new trajectories of TSR development to facilitate the transition to a more pervasive transformative healthcare sector.

The analysis showed that most research conducted under the TSR domain had utilized a patient-centered approach. This aligns with the imperative to prioritize the patients and their experience (Pelzang, 2010), but it also underscores the absence of a comprehensive vision that aims to extend the transformative impacts to encompass every actor involved in the changing process. The literature reveals that most of the research concentrates on the individual (micro) level, specifically focusing on patients (and rarely on their families), without considering the engagement and potential benefits for other ecosystem actors.

The first critical issue is the lack of research adopting an ecosystem approach to investigate the possible impacts of TPs on all involved actors (negative or positive). By adopting an ecosystem perspective in healthcare services researchers can go beyond the dyadic relationship between service provider-patient (customer), considering a constellation of actor-to-actor interactions characterized by great interdependence (Mele and Russo-Spena, 2019). The service ecosystem lens offers valuable insights into how actors might affect value cocreation within the service ecosystems they belong to (Vink et al., 2021). Previte and Robertson (2019) noted that transformation is not synonymous with well-being, but rather represents the development of a functional change to achieve a higher level of individual and collective well-being (Blocker and Barrios, 2015). Therefore, adopting the service ecosystem theoretical lens is essential for investigating how the service transformation takes place considering a multiple actors perspective. This approach enables the understanding of how the interaction and collaborative efforts of a plurality of actors, along with the integration of their resources, leads to changes in the value (co)creation processes (Letaifa, 2014), ultimately influencing well-being outcomes (Rahman, 2021).

Furthermore, the lack of an ecosystem perspective is also evident when considering the analyzed outcomes. The reviewed literature predominantly examines the effects of TPs on patient well-being while neglecting the consideration of how these practices impact other actors and the ecosystem as a whole. Only one article goes beyond the individual perspective to identify potential advantages for the healthcare network (Groven et al., 2021). An analysis of the scientific production considered in the SLR and the resulting TPs, however, reveals the existence of collaborative mechanisms involving multiple actors that, although not explicitly studied, allow (or could contribute) to generate further uplifting changes. For example, in the TP3 “Integration of non-medical supportive activities”, the delivery of patient support services implies that the HSP has to keep up relationships with the volunteering associations and the listening groups. In this context, family members or friends are also frequently involved because they may help patients participate in and manage these activities. At the same time, the family members can also benefit from the engagement (Lam and Bianchi, 2019). Their emotional and psychological well-being can be enhanced through exchanging information with peers, which helps release tensions associated with handling the patient’s illness. Similarly, volunteers involved in the supportive provision not only enhance patient well-being through their activities, but also provide favorable outcomes for themselves (Mulder et al., 2015), families and the HSP (Di Pietro et al., 2022). Likewise, the policymaker can play a significant role throughout a normative institutionalization of the TP at the national level, the allocation of additional funds and resources and facilitating the establishment of relationships among the involved actors (i.e. associations and service providers). This example underscores the significance of adopting an ecosystem perspective when examining the transformative impact of services.

Secondly, the absence of a multilevel vision is also evident in the examined publications. As suggested by relevant authors (e.g. Beirão et al., 2017; Brodie et al., 2021), the investigation of the healthcare ecosystem and the methods through which transformative value is co-created must consider the analysis of multiple levels of aggregation. This implies conducting an analysis capable of moving within and between the ecosystem’s micro-, meso- and macro-levels (Vargo and Lusch, 2016, 2017; Chandler and Vargo, 2011). It aligns with the request for a deeper understanding of how resources are integrated to co-create value within and among the healthcare ecosystem levels (Beirão et al., 2017). The ecosystem can contain a wide range of actors at various levels, and it is possible to illustrate how these actors interact to produce benefits for the patient and the community (Brodie et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the concept of well-being also has a multidimensional form (Chen et al., 2023; Gallan et al., 2021), and addressing individual and collective issues while taking micro-, meso- and macro-level analysis into consideration is one of TSR’s main goals. Despite this, it is noteworthy that in the SLR, only one paper focuses on investigating well-being considering the micro (patient) to meso (community) level linkage (Gallan et al., 2019).

Thirdly, another significant aspect that arises directly concerns the main purpose of the TSR. By definition, TSR strives to achieve uplifting changes on both individual and collective levels (Anderson et al., 2013). However, as highlighted by Gallan et al. (2019), the connections between different levels of well-being have not been fully analyzed. Indeed, this element does not appear in the literature published so far. Most examined papers concentrate on enhancing the individual’s well-being while omitting the collective dimension. In this respect, collaborative partnerships, which signify higher-order connections between individuals and organizations, may represent a lever for enhancing community well-being (Goldberg et al., 2016; Roussos and Fawcett, 2000; Gallan et al., 2013). Achieving collective well-being affects outcomes related to individuals because all actors in a service ecosystem are interdependent (Leo et al., 2019; Gallan et al., 2021).

6. Conclusion and implications

The current research addresses the growing demand for studies aimed at elevating the purpose of service, with a specific focus on the potential positive transformations in society brought about by changes in the healthcare sector (Bowen et al., 2023).

The study delves into the literature within the TSR domain in healthcare, providing an integrative framework that may inspire scholars and practitioners. This framework identifies four transformative practices (TPs) that, when integrated into healthcare service delivery, not only enhance the patient experience but also contribute to overall individual well-being. The research yields practical implications for HSP and policymakers, addressing the call of Alkire et al. (2020). These implications hold relevance at micro-levels (medical and non-medical staff), meso-levels (hospitals, healthcare organizations, health clinics) and macro-levels (governments, society/community).

Simultaneously, the paper critically evaluates the contribution of TSR literature to healthcare services transformation. While the identified TPs enhance the patient experience, the analysis indicates that their implementation can extend beyond individual well-being to contribute to collective well-being. The patient-centered approach observed in the literature review only partially captures the transformative potential of the practices. Consequently, the paper highlights a research gap in studies adopting an ecosystem and multi-actor perspective to analyze the transformative impact of the healthcare service. It underscores the necessity for further investigation into how the integration of resources and collaborative efforts among actors can lead to positive changes for the ecosystem and the community. In doing so, this paper contributes to the advancement of TSR and healthcare literature, presenting an agenda with research trajectories for the future.

In the following paragraphs, the authors present the practical implications for healthcare management and the agenda for future research.

6.1 Managerial implication

As highlighted, healthcare services inherently contribute to the improvement of users' well-being. Consequently, HSP are encouraged to integrate activities that promote well-being (Rahman et al., 2020). Enhancing patients' well-being not only fosters positive outcomes for the individual such as increased health-related outcomes, but also yields benefits for the community, including the potential reduction of care-associated costs and shorter durations of stay in medical facilities.

The findings show that HSP should go beyond the dyadic view (patient-provider) and the traditional PCC to include and engage more actors that, through their resources, can support patients, enhancing their health and the ecosystem’s well-being. As suggested by Gallan et al. (2019), PCC has to be expanded to acknowledge an ecosystem view considering the interactions between the multiple actors that characterize the HSE (i.e. non-medical professionals, volunteering associations and social support groups).

Thus, it became crucial to understand how to engage patients, families, employees and all the other relevant stakeholders. Creating multidisciplinary teams can be beneficial because they can better support the patient in facing the disease while helping the staff address the unique situations of each patient/family. For instance, the collaboration between medical staff and non-healthcare actors (i.e. volunteering associations) can assist physicians in reducing the stress related to providing emotional support to patients, reducing the pressure on the ecosystem and contribute to enhancing the well-being (Di Pietro et al., 2022). Providers must comprehend how to form partnerships and incorporate these stakeholders into the ecosystem. In addition, policymakers play a part since they can help actors connect and provide funds and resources that can be utilized to create new services and promote the availability and benefits of these services in public spaces.

In this context, training healthcare staff has become essential to help them understand the importance of resource integration from diverse actors in the ecosystem to achieve health-related goals and well-being outcomes. Staff should receive adequate information and tools, and their sensitivity should be increased as it is crucial to assess knowledge and community resources (Gallan et al., 2019; Lusch et al., 2010). Policymakers could also create training programs and make them available, perhaps by offering credits similar to those offered in continuing medical education programs in Italy, encouraging individuals to advance their knowledge of multi-stakeholder relationship management.

Simultaneously, the HSP should also support patients and families in developing skills to face the disease and the related phenomenon. One way is to apply strategies to segment the users to comprehend how to provide tailored services and different supportive resources to improve customers agency and independence while avoiding the negative feelings that could arise from the burden of work (Anderson et al., 2016; Pham et al., 2019; Bieler et al., 2022). Knowing the patient’s coping strategies can help minimize their vulnerability (Mayer et al., 2019) (TP1).

Healthcare professionals might want to reconsider some traditional methods and arrangements for providing services. For example, it has been demonstrated that tangible and intangible aspects of the servicescape can positively affect actors' well-being and improve service performance (i.e. Rosenbaum et al., 2014; Adomah-Afari et al., 2019). As a result, the HSP should redesign the servicescape with all the components that can help employees and users fight unpleasant feelings and regain a sense of normalcy. For instance, incorporating greenery, creating welcome and safe environments and maximizing natural lights can trigger a positive mood (TP2). It has been demonstrated that horticultural therapy can increase the satisfaction and well-being of patients and their families (Gulielmetti Mugion and Menicucci, 2021). Integrating social groups and complementary care activities into the healthcare setting via a planned program can promote community and belonging while achieving outcomes linked to health and well-being (TP3). Social activities that involve disseminating knowledge and education are essential for aiding illness management (Rahman et al., 2020; Lin and Chou, 2022).

Even technology can play a crucial role and can be used to gather data about the actor’s needs, boost engagement (i.e. using gamification mechanics), monitor the patient’s health status and facilitate the sharing of information with the medical staff (technologies through continuous monitoring may be able to assess the onset of a medical emergency even before the patient is aware of it, allowing staff to intervene promptly). Even though integrating digital platforms and smart devices into care processes is not always simple, numerous opportunities make the effort worthwhile, such as increasing user agency and independence (TP4).

6.2 Agenda for future research

The findings contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the TSR domain, focusing on healthcare services and generate significant opportunities for future research.

First, general directions are suggested to define TSR trajectories within healthcare services. The SLR showed that the majority of the articles focus on the micro level analysis highlighting a lack of studies adopting an ecosystem approach and a multiple actors’ perspective to understand how resource integration take place, influencing value co-creation processes (Letaifa, 2014). In this regard, the following research questions arise: Which actors interact in the healthcare service ecosystem? What are the drivers (and challenges) that foster the integration of resources in the ecosystem? What kind of transformative value cocreation processes and activities are generated?

Moreover, the interactions in the healthcare service ecosystem benefit multiple actors (Lam and Bianchi, 2019; Mulder et al., 2015) and a multilevel vision is needed to analyze how transformative value is co-created (Beirão et al., 2017; Brodie et al., 2021). Furthermore, most articles focused only on the individual level, neglecting the investigation of how the collective well-being (Gallan et al., 2019) can be generated. Therefore, more research is needed to answer the following research questions: In addition to the patient, which actors derive benefits from the integration of resources within the ecosystem? What types of outcomes (benefits or drawbacks) are produced? How do TPs occur across multiple levels (micro, meso, macro) of the ecosystem? How can uplifting changes be extended from the individual to the collective perspective.

Second, for each TP, a set of research questions is presented in Table 7. Starting from TP1, future studies should examine the factors that promote and/or inhibit coproduction and cocreation activities. The resource integration processes between multiple actors in healthcare settings should be better understood. Another significant point of analysis regards understanding mechanisms leading to value co-destruction, specifically when and how tensions and conflicts arise and how actors manage these adverse circumstances.

Considering TP2, more investigations are required to deepen the concept of restorative and transformative servicescape in healthcare. Different health facilities can be analyzed by comparing, for example, public and private settings. It is also worth understanding if cultural models, diseases and other specific aspects can influence the user’s perception regarding the servicescape and the service performance considering related differential impacts on well-being.

Regarding TP3, future analysis could focus on examining different vulnerability statuses (i.e. chronic disease, hard-to-reach populations, elderly), how individuals cope with their diverse situations. Research should explore strategies that can be developed to mitigate vulnerabilities and improve health and well-being benefits. The supportive role of other actors (such as families and friends) should be investigated to understand how their perspectives influence social participation, interactions and response to the disease and how they can facilitate the relationship with the HSP. Simultaneously, any opportunities or barriers that prevent social interaction and support should be examined.

Concerning TP4, additional studies on multiple technology-based transformative services are needed to analyze technology impacts on actors' well-being considering various contexts and settings. Another avenue of research could involve determining which individuals (and types of diseases) benefit most from applying innovative technologies and how their health status improves. The cultural and socio-demographic aspects should be addressed to investigate their influence on the intention to adopt digital platforms or smart devices and their connection with the well-being outcomes. Researchers should also analyze how to improve accessibility to technologies for different categories of individuals (base of the pyramid, elderly). Investigating how technologies transform the roles of medical staff and their interactions with the service providers, as well as how they induce new behaviors and habits in patients, is required.

Although the present work significantly contributes to the existing literature by identifying the integrative framework, it does not explicitly illustrate the interconnections between the detected TPs. It is evident that implementing a transformative healthcare service requires a systemic, integrated and holistic approach. However, there is a need to determine an approach for combining the TPs during the service delivery to maximize the benefits for individuals and communities.

Figures

Literature search procedure based on the steps of the PRISMA diagram

Figure 1

Literature search procedure based on the steps of the PRISMA diagram

Number of articles published per year

Figure 2

Number of articles published per year

Distribution of publications per study approach

Figure 3

Distribution of publications per study approach

TP1 outcomes per actor

Figure 4

TP1 outcomes per actor

TP2 outcomes per actor

Figure 5

TP2 outcomes per actor

TP3 outcomes per actor

Figure 6

TP3 outcomes per actor

TP4 outcomes per actor

Figure 7

TP4 outcomes per actor

Integrative framework of transformative healthcare service: practices and well-being outcomes

Figure 8

Integrative framework of transformative healthcare service: practices and well-being outcomes

Number of publications per journal

Journals type and nameN° articles
Service Journals33 (67%)
Journal of Services Marketing13
Service Industries Journal6
Journal of Service Research4
Journal of Business Research3
Journal of Service Management2
Journal of Service Theory and Practice2
Managing Service Quality2
Services Marketing Quarterly1
Management/Marketing Journal12 (24%)
Annals of Tourism Research1
Cogent Business and Management1
European Journal of Marketing1
International Journal of Hospitality Management1
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management1
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing1
Journal of Cleaner Production1
Journal of Consumer Marketing1
Journal of Marketing Management1
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing1
Sage Open1
Technology in Society1
Healthcare Journals4 (8%)
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing2
Health Marketing Quarterly1
Journal of Health Organization and Management1
Total articles49 (100%)

Source(s): Created by authors

Transformative practices overview: number of adopted papers and methods

Transformative practicesN. of papersMethod
Actors’ empowerment and collaboration18Conceptual: 2
Empirical: 16 (11 qualitative, 2 quantitative, 3 mixed method)
Reorganization of service provision (spaces and performance)14Conceptual: 5
Empirical: 9 (1 qualitative, 6 quantitative, 2 mixed method)
Integration of non-medical supportive activities13Empirical: 13 (6 qualitative, 7 quantitative)
Development of technology-based healthcare solutions4Empirical: 4 (2 qualitative, 2 quantitative)

Source(s): Created by authors

Actors’ empowerment and collaboration description

Transformative practice elementsDescriptionReferences
Responsibilization (value coproduction)Allowing patients to be involved in their care program development
Providing the adequate resources for patients’ autonomy
Azzari et al. (2021), Anderson et al. (2016), Groven et al. (2021), Taiminen et al. (2020), Pham et al. (2019), Lam and Bianchi (2019), Davey and Grönroos (2019), Kaartemo and Känsäkoski (2018), Sharma et al. (2017), Sweeney et al. (2015), Bieler et al. (2022), Chen et al. (2020), Black and Gallan (2015), McColl-Kennedy et al. (2017), Jefferies et al. (2019), O'Connor and Cook (2020), Gallan et al. (2019), Pham et al. (2019)
Actors’ interactions (value co-creation)Promoting value co-creation practices to encourage interaction between actors
Supporting the healthcare actors in their resource integration to avoid tensions

Source(s): Created by authors

Reorganization of service provision (spaces and performance) description

Transformative practice elementsDescriptionReferences
ServicescapeUsing the tangible aspects of the servicescape (i.e. greenery, natural light) to reduce stress and negative feelings
Supporting socialization and interaction through the intangible aspects of the servicescape to determine restorative outcomes
Adomah-Afari et al. (2019), Rosenbaum and Smallwood (2013), Otalora et al. (2018), Sawang et al. (2019), Hamed et al. (2017), Hamed et al. (2016), El-Manstrly and Rosenbaum (2018), Rosenbaum et al. (2014), Islam et al. (2022), Anderson et al. (2018), Sawyerr and Harrison (2023), Rosenbaum et al. (2021), Davis et al. (2017), Rosenbaum et al. (2011)
Service qualityPaying attention to healthcare service quality (i.e. waiting time, professional skills, employees’ behaviors, equipment, listening, and respect) influences the willingness of patients to maintain long-term relationships with the service provider

Source(s): Created by authors

Integration of non-medical supportive activities description

Transformative practice elementsDescriptionReferences
Social supportMaking patients and families feel supported and part of a group/community reduces the negative feelings associated with the diseaseRosenbaum et al. (2021), Hunter-Jones et al. (2020), Rahman et al. (2020), Gopaldas et al., 2021, Parkinson et al. (2017), Rahman et al. (2020), Akareem et al. (2021), Peng et al. (2022), Robertson et al. (2021), Mayer et al. (2019), Zayer et al. (2015), Amine et al. (2021)
Service provider supportHelping patients and families cope with the disease by enabling them to feel in control improves their well-being and reduces vulnerability

Source(s): Created by authors

Development of technology-based healthcare solutions description

Transformative practice elementsDescription
Innovative devices and mechanicsTurning patients from passive to active, promoting healthy behaviors, increasing engagement and independence for an improved patient experienceRai (2018), Hammedi et al. (2017), Schuster et al. (2015), Islam et al. (2022)
Online servicesAllowing to monitor disease evolution continuously, collecting data and following patients remotely to achieve better health outcomes

Source(s): Created by authors

Future research directions

Transformative practicePotential research questions
TP1. Actors’ empowerment and collaborationRQ1. How can different characteristics and needs of customers (patients) influence co-creation practices and customer (patient) well-being?
RQ2. How do the interactions between each actor take place? What metrics should be developed to measure the resulting outcomes?
TP 2. Reorganization of service provisionRQ3. How does each element of the servicescape influence the well-being of the actors? How do they influence the customers' (patients') perceptions?
RQ4. What are the elements that contribute to a restorative servicescape? How do the specific characteristics of each individual influence the benefits derived from the elements of the servicescape?
TP 3. Integration of non-medical supportive activitiesRQ5. How do the different actors take on supporting roles? Moreover, what kind of influence do supportive practices have on actors' well-being? ​
RQ6. What supportive resources do the actors bring into the ecosystem? And how do they contribute to the well-being of individuals and the ecosystem?
RQ7. What enhances or reduces vulnerability status? And how do coping strategies influence individuals' well-being?
TP 4. Development of technology-based healthcare solutionsRQ8. How do the specific characteristics of each individual (type of disease, cultural factors) influence the adoption of technology?
RQ9. What negative impacts can the adoption of technology generate? And how can the destruction of value and well-being be mitigated?
RQ10. How does the relationship between actors change due to the introduction of new platforms or devices, and what kind of results does this have on well-being and health?

Source(s): Created by authors

List of papers included in the SLR

IDSLR References
1Adomah-Afari, A., Doris Darkoa Mantey, D., & Awuah-Werekoh, K. (2019). Factors influencing a long-term relationship between healthcare providers and patients–perspectives of patients at a public regional hospital, Ghana. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing13(3), 364-386
2Akareem, H. S., Wiese, M., & Hammedi, W. (2022). Patients’ experience sharing with online social media communities: a bottom-of-the-pyramid perspective. Journal of Services Marketing36(2), 168-184
3Amine, A., Bonnemaizon, A., & Josion-Portail, M. (2021). The effect of carers’ healthcare practices on the categorization of elderly patients as vulnerable. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(5), 604-616
4Anderson, L., Spanjol, J., Jefferies, J. G., Ostrom, A. L., Nations Baker, C., Bone, S. A., Downey, H., Mende, M., & Rapp, J. M. (2016). Responsibility and well-being: resource integration under responsibilization in expert services. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing35(2), 262-279
5Anderson, S., Nasr, L., & Rayburn, S. W. (2018). Transformative service research and service design: synergistic effects in healthcare. The Service Industries Journal38(1-2), 99-113
6Azzari, C. N., Anderson, L., Mende, M., Jefferies, J. G., Downey, H., Ostrom, A. L., & Spanjol, J. (2021). Consumers on the job: contextualization crafting in expert services. Journal of Service Research24(4), 520-541
7Bieler, M., Maas, P., Fischer, L., & Rietmann, N. (2022). Enabling cocreation with transformative interventions: an interdisciplinary conceptualization of consumer boosting. Journal of Service Research25(1), 29-47
8Black, H. G., & Gallan, A. S. (2015). Transformative service networks: cocreated value as well-being. The Service Industries Journal35(15-16), 826-845
9Chen, T., Dodds, S., Finsterwalder, J., Witell, L., Cheung, L., Falter, M., Garry, T., Snyder, H. & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2021). Dynamics of wellbeing co-creation: a psychological ownership perspective. Journal of Service Management, 32(3), 383-406
10Davey, J., & Grönroos, C. (2019). Health service literacy: complementary actor roles for transformative value co-creation. Journal of Services Marketing33(6), 687-701
11Davis, K. S., Mohan, M., & Rayburn, S. W. (2017). Service quality and acculturation: advancing immigrant healthcare utilization. Journal of Services Marketing31(4/5), 362-372
12El-Manstrly, D., & Rosenbaum, M. S. (2018). Encouraging male participation in cancer resource centers. The Service Industries Journal38(1-2), 114-126
13Gallan, A. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Barakshina, T., Figueiredo, B., Jefferies, J. G., Gollnhofer, J., Hibbert, S., Luca, N., Roy, S., Spanjol, J., & Winklhofer, H. (2019). Transforming community well-being through patients' lived experiences. Journal of Business Research100, 376-391
14Gopaldas, A., Carnevale, M., Kedzior, R., & Siebert, A. (2021). Service conversation: advisory, relational and transformative approaches. Journal of Services Marketing35(8), 988-999
15Groven, F., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Zwakhalen, S., & Hamers, J. (2021). Network well-being from a balanced centricity perspective. Journal of Services Marketing35(9), 1-14
16Hamed, S., El-Bassiouny, N., & Ternès, A. (2016). Evidence-based design and transformative service research for the healthcare in hospitals: Setting the research agenda. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing10(2), 214-229
17Hamed, S., El-Bassiouny, N., & Ternes, A. (2017). Evidence-Based Design and Transformative Service Research application for achieving sustainable healthcare services: A developing country perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production140, 1885-1892
18Hammedi, W., Leclerq, T., & Van Riel, A. C. (2017). The use of gamification mechanics to increase employee and user engagement in participative healthcare services: A study of two cases. Journal of Service Management28(4), 640-661
19Hunter-Jones, P., Sudbury-Riley, L., Al-Abdin, A., Menzies, L., & Neary, K. (2020). When a child is sick: The role of social tourism in palliative and end-of-life care. Annals of Tourism Research83, 102900
20Islam, S., Muhamad, N., & Sumardi, W. H. (2022). Customer-perceived service wellbeing in a transformative framework: Research propositions in the area of health services. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing19(1), 219-245
21Islam, S., Hoque, M. R., & Jamil, M. A. A. (2020). Predictors of users’ preferences for online health services. Journal of Consumer Marketing37(2), 215-225
22Jefferies, J. G., Bishop, S., & Hibbert, S. (2019). Customer boundary work to navigate institutional arrangements around service interactions: Exploring the case of telehealth. Journal of Business Research105, 420-433
23Kaartemo, V., & Känsäkoski, H. (2018). Information and knowledge processes in health care value co-creation and co-destruction. Sage Open8(4), 2158244018820482
24Lam, P., & Bianchi, C. (2019). Exploring the role of family in enhancing the well-being of patients with developmental disorders. Journal of Services Marketing33(6), 721-734
25Lin, C. Y., & Chou, E. Y. (2022). Stepping up, stepping out: the elderly customer long-term health-care experience. Journal of Services Marketing36(8), 1076-1094
26Mayer, J., Zainuddin, N., Russell-Bennett, R., & Mulcahy, R. F. (2019). Scaring the bras off women: The role of threat appeal, brand congruence, and social support in health service recruitment coping strategies. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(3), 233-257
27McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Hogan, S. J., Witell, L., & Snyder, H. (2017). Cocreative customer practices: Effects of health care customer value cocreation practices on well-being. Journal of Business Research70, 55-66
28O’Connor, G. E., & Cook, L. A. (2020). Reducing referral leakage: an analysis of health-care referrals in a service ecosystem. Journal of Services Marketing34(4), 513-528
29Otalora, M. L., Rosenbaum, M. S., & Orejula, A. R. (2018). Understanding health care service quality in developing Latin America. Health marketing quarterly35(3), 167-185
30Parkinson, J., Schuster, L., Mulcahy, R., & Taiminen, H. M. (2017). Online support for vulnerable consumers: a safe place?. Journal of Services Marketing31(4/5), 412-422
31Pham, T. A. N., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2021). Does well-being differ across customer value cocreation practice styles? An empirical study in a chronic health context. European Journal of Marketing, 55(7), 1901-1929
32Pham, T. A. N., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2019). Customer value cocreation activities: An exploration of psychological drivers and quality of life outcomes. Journal of Service Theory and Practice29(3), 282-308
33Peng, J., Yang, X., Poon, P., & Xie, L. (2022). Enhancing users' well-being in virtual medical tourism communities: A configurational analysis of users’ interaction characteristics and social support. Technology in Society, 71, 102084
34Rai, R. S. (2018). Facilitating transformative change in medication adherence practices. The Service Industries Journal38(1-2), 48-66
35Rahman, A., Björk, P., & Ravald, A. (2020). Effects of Healthcare Service Provider’s Organizational Socialization and Support on Patients’ Well-Being. Services Marketing Quarterly41(2), 105-123
36Rahman, A., Björk, P., & Ravald, A. (2020). Exploring the effects of service provider’s organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and well-being. Cogent Business & Management7(1), 1767329
37Robertson, N., Tsarenko, Y., Polonsky, M. J., & McQuilken, L. (2021). Vulnerability in in vitro fertilisation transformative services: an interplay of individual and institutional factors. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(6), 706-721
38Rosenbaum, M. S., Kuppelwieser, V. G., Ramirez, G. C., & Orejuela, A. R. (2022). Understanding health center–client relationships in the context of a developing Latin America country. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103419
39Rosenbaum, M. S., Kim, K., Ramirez, G. C., Orejuela, A. R., & Park, J. (2021). Improving well-being via adaptive reuse: transformative repurposed service organizations. The Service Industries Journal41(3-4), 223-247
40Rosenbaum, M. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Massiah, C. (2014). The restorative potential of senior centers. Managing Service Quality24(4), 363-383
41Rosenbaum, M. S., & Smallwood, J. A. (2011). Cancer resource centres: transformational services and restorative servicescapes. Journal of Marketing Management27(13-14), 1404-1425
42Rosenbaum, M. S., Sweeney, J., & Smallwood, J. (2011). Restorative cancer resource center servicescapes. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal21(6), 599-616
43Sawang, S., Chou, C. Y., & Truong-Dinh, B. Q. (2019). The perception of crowding, quality and well-being: a study of Vietnamese public health services. Journal of health organization and management33(4), 460-477
44Sawyerr, E., & Harrison, C. (2023). Resilience in healthcare supply chains: a review of the UK’s response to the COVID19 pandemic. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management53(3), 297-329
45Schuster, L., Drennan, J., & Lings, I. (2015). Understanding consumers’ decisions to adopt technology-enabled transformative services. The Service Industries Journal35(15-16), 846-864
46Sharma, S., Conduit, J., & Hill, S. R. (2017). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. Journal of Services Marketing31(4/5), 397-411
47Sweeney, J. C., Danaher, T. S., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2015). Customer effort in value cocreation activities: Improving quality of life and behavioral intentions of health care customers. Journal of Service Research18(3), 318-335
48Taiminen, H., Taiminen, K., & Munnukka, J. (2020). Enabling transformative value creation through online weight loss services. Journal of Services Marketing34(6), 797-808
49Zayer, L. T., Otnes, C. C., & Fischer, E. M. (2015). The nature and implications of consumers’ experiential framings of failure in high-risk service contexts. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 303-317

Source(s): Created by authors

Appendix

Table A1

References

Adomah-Afari, A., Mantey, D.D.D. and Awuah-Werekoh, K. (2019), “Factors influencing a long-term relationship between healthcare providers and patients–perspectives of patients at a public regional hospital, Ghana”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 364-386, doi: 10.1108/ijphm-05-2017-0021.

Akareem, H.S., Wiese, M. and Hammedi, W. (2021), “Patients' experience sharing with online social media communities: a bottom-of-the-pyramid perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 168-184, doi: 10.1108/jsm-12-2020-0512.

Alkire, L., Mooney, C., Gur, F.A., Kabadayi, S., Renko, M. and Vink, J. (2020), “Transformative service research, service design, and social entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary framework advancing well-being and social impact”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 24-50.

Anderson, L. and Ostrom, A.L. (2015), “Transformative service research: advancing our knowledge about service and well-being”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 243-249, doi: 10.1177/1094670515591316.

Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., Fisk, R.P., Gallan, A.S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S.W., Rosenbaum, M.S., Shirahada, K. and Williams, J.D. (2013), “Transformative service research: an agenda for the future”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1203-1210, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013.

Anderson, L., Spanjol, J., Jefferies, J.G., Ostrom, A.L., Nations Baker, C., Bone, S.A., Downey, H., Mende, M. and Rapp, J.M. (2016), “Responsibility and well-being: resource integration under responsibilization in expert services”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 262-279, doi: 10.1509/jppm.15.140.

Amine, A., Bonnemaizon, A. and Josion-Portail, M. (2021), “The effect of carers’ healthcarepractices on the categorization of elderly patients as vulnerable”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 604-616.

Anderson, S., Nasr, L. and Rayburn, S.W. (2018), “Transformative service research and service design: synergistic effects in healthcare”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 1-2, pp. 99-113, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1404579.

Azzari, C.N., Anderson, L., Mende, M., Jefferies, J.G., Downey, H., Ostrom, A.L. and Spanjol, J. (2021), “Consumers on the job: contextualization crafting in expert services”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 520-541, doi: 10.1177/10946705211012474.

Bieler, M., Maas, P., Fischer, L. and Rietmann, N. (2022), “Enabling cocreation with transformative interventions: an interdisciplinary conceptualization of consumer boosting”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 29-47, doi: 10.1177/10946705211003676.

Beirão, G., Patrício, L. and Fisk, R.P. (2017), “Value cocreation in service ecosystems: investigating health care at the micro, meso, and macro levels”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 227-249, doi: 10.1108/josm-11-2015-0357.

Berry, L.L. and Bendapudi, N. (2007), “Health care, a fertile field for service research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 111-122, doi: 10.1177/1094670507306682.

Berry, L.L., Parker, D., Coile, R.C., Hamilton, D.K., O'Neill, D.D. and Sadler, B.L. (2004), “The business case for better buildings”, Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-24, doi: 10.1097/01974520-200407000-00002.

Black, H.G. and Gallan, A.S. (2015), “Transformative service networks: cocreated value as well-being”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 15-16, pp. 826-845, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2015.1090978.

Blocker, C.P. and Barrios, A. (2015), “The transformative value of a service experience”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 265-283, doi: 10.1177/1094670515583064.

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D. and Sutton, A. (2012), Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, SAGE Publications, London.

Bowen, D.E., Fisk, R.P., Bateson, J.E.G., Berry, L.L., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Chase, R.B., Edvardsson, B., Grönroos, C., Parasuraman, A., Schneider, B. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2023), “Learning from the pioneering founders of the service research field”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 605-630, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-03-2023-0121.

Brodie, R.J., Ranjan, K.R., Verreynne, M.L., Jiang, Y. and Previte, J. (2021), “Coronavirus crisis and health care: learning from a service ecosystem perspective”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 225-246, doi: 10.1108/jstp-07-2020-0178.

Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S. (2010), “Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 48-64, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.3.048.

Chandler, J.D. and Vargo, S.L. (2011), “Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-49, doi: 10.1177/1470593110393713.

Chen, T., Dodds, S., Finsterwalder, J., Witell, L., Cheung, L., Falter, M., Garry, T., Snyder, H. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2020), “Dynamics of wellbeing co-creation: a psychological ownership perspective”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 383-406, doi: 10.1108/josm-09-2019-0297.

Chen, X.M.S., Schuster, L. and Luck, E. (2023), “The well-being outcomes of multi-actor inter-organisational value co-creation and co-destruction within a service ecosystem”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 606-619, doi: 10.1108/jsm-03-2022-0082.

Danaher, T.S. and Gallan, A.S. (2016), “Service research in health care: positively impacting lives”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 433-437, doi: 10.1177/1094670516666346.

Davey, J. and Grönroos, C. (2019), “Health service literacy: complementary actor roles for transformative value co-creation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 687-701, doi: 10.1108/jsm-09-2018-0272.

Davis, K.S., Mohan, M. and Rayburn, S.W. (2017), “Service quality and acculturation: advancing immigrant healthcare utilization”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 362-372, doi: 10.1108/jsm-03-2016-0118.

Dean, A. and Indrianti, N. (2020), “Transformative service research at the BoP: the case of Etawa goat farmers in Indonesia”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 665-681, doi: 10.1108/jsm-07-2019-0251.

Di Pietro, L., Ungaro, V., Renzi, M.F. and Edvardsson, B. (2022), “Transformative value: the role of volunteers in creating well-being in healthcare service”, in Tracey, B., Heinonen, K., Trull-Domínguez, O. and Peiró-Signes, A. (Eds), Proceedings of the QUIS17 the 17th International Research Symposium on Service Excellence in Management, Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain, pp. 19-27.

Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Hassan, R. and Escobar, O. (2020), “Artificial intelligence and business models in the sustainable development goals perspective: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 121, pp. 283-314, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019.

El-Manstrly, D. and Rosenbaum, M.S. (2018), “Encouraging male participation in cancer resource centers”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 1-2, pp. 114-126, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1402008.

Eloranta, V. and Turunen, T. (2015), “Seeking competitive advantage with service infusion: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 394-425, doi: 10.1108/josm-12-2013-0359.

Engström, J. and Elg, M. (2015), “A self-determination theory perspective on customer participation in service development”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7, pp. 511-521, doi: 10.1108/jsm-01-2015-0053.

Epstein, R.M. (2000), “The science of patient-centered care”, Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 49 No. 9, p. 805.

Fink, A. (2019), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 5th ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.

Fisk, R.P. and Alkire, L. (2021), “Service ecosystem health: a transformative approach to elevating service science”, Service Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 194-204, doi: 10.1287/serv.2021.0281.

Fisk, R.P., Alkire, L., Anderson, L., Bowen, D.E., Gruber, T., Ostrom, A.L. and Patrício, L. (2020), “Elevating the human experience (HX) through service research collaborations: introducing ServCollab”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 615-635, doi: 10.1108/josm-10-2019-0325.

Følstad, A. and Kvale, K. (2018), “Customer journeys: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 196-227, doi: 10.1108/jstp-11-2014-0261.

Galarza-Winton, M.E., Dicky, T., O'Leary, L., Lee, S.K. and O'Brien, K. (2013), “Implementing family-integrated care in the NICU: educating nurses”, Advances in Neonatal Care, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 335-340, doi: 10.1097/anc.0b013e3182a14cde.

Gallan, A.S., Jarvis, C.B., Brown, S.W. and Bitner, M.J. (2013), “Customer positivity and participation in services: an empirical test in a health care context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 338-356, doi: 10.1007/s11747-012-0307-4.

Gallan, A.S., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Barakshina, T., Figueiredo, B., Jefferies, J.G., Gollnhofer, J., Hibbert, S., Luca, N., Roy, S., Spanjol, J. and Winklhofer, H. (2019), “Transforming community well-being through patients' lived experiences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100, pp. 376-391, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.029.

Gallan, A.S., Kabadayi, S., Ali, F., Helkkula, A., Wu, L. and Zhang, Y. (2021), “Transformative hospitality services: a conceptualization and development of organizational dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 134, pp. 171-183, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.028.

Goldberg, D.G., Feng, L.B. and Kuzel, A. (2016), “The role of primary care practices in advancing population health”, Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 87-94, doi: 10.1097/jac.0000000000000078.

Goldstein, S.M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J. and Rao, J. (2002), “The service concept: the missing link in service design research?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 121-134, doi: 10.1016/s0272-6963(01)00090-0.

Gopaldas, A., Carnevale, M., Kedzior, R. and Siebert, A. (2021), “Service conversation: advisory, relational and transformative approaches”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 988-999, doi: 10.1108/jsm-09-2019-0365.

Groven, F., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Zwakhalen, S. and Hamers, J. (2021), “Network well-being from a balanced centricity perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1108/jsm-11-2020-0466.

Guglielmetti Mugion, R. and Menicucci, E. (2021), “Understanding the benefits of horticultural therapy on paediatric patient's well-being during hospitalisation”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 856-881, doi: 10.1108/tqm-04-2020-0078.

Hamed, S., El-Bassiouny, N. and Ternès, A. (2016), “Evidence-based design and transformative service research for the healthcare in hospitals: setting the research agenda”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 214-229, doi: 10.1108/ijphm-10-2013-0058.

Hamed, S., El-Bassiouny, N. and Ternes, A. (2017), “Evidence-based design and transformative service research application for achieving sustainable healthcare services: a developing country perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1885-1892, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.161.

Hammedi, W., Leclerq, T. and Van Riel, A.C. (2017), “The use of gamification mechanics to increase employee and user engagement in participative healthcare services: a study of two cases”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 640-661, doi: 10.1108/josm-04-2016-0116.

Harris, J. and White, V. (2013), A Dictionary of Social Work and Social Care, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Hicks, D. and Wang, J. (2011), “Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 284-294, doi: 10.1002/asi.21458.

Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P.H. and Koll, O. (2015), “Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capablities”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 411-428, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0424-y.

Hunter-Jones, P., Sudbury-Riley, L., Al-Abdin, A., Menzies, L. and Neary, K. (2020), “When a child is sick: the role of social tourism in palliative and end-of-life care”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 83, 102900, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102900.

Institute of Medicine (Us) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2001), Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Islam, S., Hoque, M.R. and Al Jamil, M.A. (2020), “Predictors of users' preferences for online health services”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-225, doi: 10.1108/jcm-05-2018-2689.

Islam, S., Muhamad, N. and Leong, V.S. (2022), “Healthcare quality for Muslims: TCCM and TSR frameworks analyses”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 775-798, doi: 10.1108/jima-11-2020-0352.

Jefferies, J.G., Bishop, S. and Hibbert, S. (2019), “Customer boundary work to navigate institutional arrangements around service interactions: exploring the case of telehealth”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 105, pp. 420-433, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.052.

Jw, H. (2011), “Dr. Francis W. Peabody, we need you”, Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 327-328.

Kaartemo, V. and Känsäkoski, H. (2018), “Information and knowledge processes in health care value co-creation and co-destruction”, Sage Open, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2158244018820482, doi: 10.1177/2158244018820482.

Kumbani, L.C., Chirwa, E., Malata, A., Odland, J.Ø. and Bjune, G. (2012), “Do Malawian women critically assess the quality of care? A qualitative study on women's perceptions of perinatal care at a district hospital in Malawi”, Reproductive Health, Vol. 9, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-9-30.

La Placa, V., McNaught, A. and Knight, A. (2013), “Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice”, International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 116-125, doi: 10.5502/ijw.v3i1.7.

Lam, P. and Bianchi, C. (2019), “Exploring the role of family in enhancing the well-being of patients with developmental disorders”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 721-734, doi: 10.1108/jsm-12-2018-0365.

Leo, W.W.C., Laud, G. and Yunhsin Chou, C. (2019), “Service system well-being: conceptualising a holistic concept”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 766-792, doi: 10.1108/josm-01-2019-0036.

Letaifa, S.B. (2014), “The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems: the value-creation/value-capture dilemma”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 278-295, doi: 10.1108/md-06-2013-0329.

Letaifa, S., Edvardsson, B. and Tronvoll, B. (2016), “The role of social platforms in transforming service ecosystems”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1933-1938, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.083.

Lin, C.Y. and Chou, E.Y. (2022), “Stepping up, stepping out: the elderly customer long-term health-care experience”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1076-1094, doi: 10.1108/jsm-05-2021-0161.

Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Tanniru, M. (2010), “Service, value networks and learning”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 19-31, doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0131-z.

MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-154, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.

Macke, J. and Genari, D. (2019), “Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208, pp. 806-815, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.091.

Manary, M.P., Boulding, W., Staelin, R. and Glickman, S.W. (2013), “The patient experience and health outcomes”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 368 No. 3, pp. 201-203, doi: 10.1056/nejmp1211775.

Marabelli, M. and Newell, S. (2014), “Knowing, power and materiality: a critical review and reconceptualization of absorptive capacity”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 479-499, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12031.

Mariani, M., Baggio, R., Fuchs, M. and Höepken, W. (2018), “Business intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3514-3554, doi: 10.1108/ijchm-07-2017-0461.

Mayer, J., Zainuddin, N., Russell-Bennett, R. and Mulcahy, R.F. (2019), “Scaring the bras off women: the role of threat appeal, brand congruence, and social support in health service recruitment coping strategies”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 233-257, doi: 10.1108/jstp-11-2017-0196.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Snyder, H., Elg, M., Witell, L., Helkkula, A., Hogan, S.J. and Anderson, L. (2017), “The changing role of the health care customer: review, synthesis and research agenda”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 2-33, doi: 10.1108/josm-01-2016-0018.

Mele, C. and Russo-Spena, T. (2019), “Innovation in sociomaterial practices: the case of IoE in the healthcare ecosystem”, Handbook of Service Science, Vol. 2, pp. 517-544.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 264-269, doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.

Mosadeghrad, A. (2013), “Healthcare service quality: towards a broad definition”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 203-219, doi: 10.1108/09526861311311409.

Mulder, M.R., Rapp, J.M., Hamby, A. and Weaver, T. (2015), “Consumer transformation through volunteer service experiences”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 15-16, pp. 865-882, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2015.1090981.

Nasr, L. and Fisk, R.P. (2019), “The global refugee crisis: how can transformative service researchers help?”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 39 Nos 9-10, pp. 684-700, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1445224.

Oben, P. (2020), “Understanding the patient experience: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Patient Experience, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 906-910, doi: 10.1177/2374373520951672.

Oertzen, A., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Brax, S.A. and Mager, B. (2018), “Co-creating services – conceptual clarification, forms and outcomes”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 641-679, doi: 10.1108/josm-03-2017-0067.

Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Burkhard, K.A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., Demirkan, H. and Rabinovich, E. (2010), “Moving forward and making a difference: research priorities for the science of service”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-36, doi: 10.1177/1094670509357611.

Ostrom, A.L., Mathras, D. and Anderson, L. (2014), “Transformative service research: an emerging subfield focused on service and well-being”, in Rust, R.T. and Huang, M.H. (Eds), Handbook of Service Marketing Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 557-579.

Ostrom, A.L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D.E., Patrício, L. and Voss, C.A. (2015), “Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 127-159, doi: 10.1177/1094670515576315.

Otalora, M.L., Rosenbaum, M.S. and Orejula, A.R. (2018), “Understanding health care service quality in developing Latin America”, Health Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 167-185, doi: 10.1080/07359683.2018.1514733.

O'Connor, G.E. and Cook, L.A. (2020), “Reducing referral leakage: an analysis of health-care referrals in a service ecosystem”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 513-528, doi: 10.1108/jsm-03-2019-0140.

Parkinson, J., Schuster, L., Mulcahy, R. and Taiminen, H.M. (2017), “Online support for vulnerable consumers: a safe place?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 412-422, doi: 10.1108/jsm-05-2016-0197.

Pasca, M.G., Renzi, M.F., Di Pietro, L. and Guglielmetti Mugion, R. (2021), “Gamification in tourism and hospitality research in the era of digital platforms: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 691-737, doi: 10.1108/jstp-05-2020-0094.

Paul, J. and Criado, A.R. (2020), “The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know?”, International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, 101717, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717.

Pelzang, R. (2010), “Time to learn: understanding patient-centred care”, British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 19 No. 14, pp. 912-917, doi: 10.12968/bjon.2010.19.14.49050.

Peng, J., Yang, X., Poon, P. and Xie, L. (2022), “Enhancing users’ well-being in virtualmedical tourism communities: a configurational analysis of users’ interactioncharacteristics and social support”, Technology in Society, Vol. 71, 102084.

Pereno, A. and Eriksson, D. (2020), “A multi-stakeholder perspective on sustainable healthcare: from 2030 onwards”, Futures, Vol. 122, 102605, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2020.102605.

Pham, T.A.N., Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2019), “Customer value co-creation activities: an exploration of psychological drivers and quality of life outcomes”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 282-308, doi: 10.1108/jstp-07-2018-0163.

Pickering, C. and Byrne, J. (2014), “The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 534-548, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.

Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D. and Byrne, J. (2015), “Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1756-1769, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.914907.

Ponte, P.R., Conlin, G., Conway, J.B., Grant, S., Medeiros, C., Nies, J., Shulman, L., Branowicki, P. and Conley, K. (2003), “Making patient-centered care come alive: achieving full integration of the patient's perspective”, JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 82-90, doi: 10.1097/00005110-200302000-00004.

Previte, J. and Robertson, N. (2019), “A continuum of transformative service exchange: insights for service and social marketers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 671-686, doi: 10.1108/jsm-10-2018-0280.

Rahman, A. (2021), “Sources and categories of well-being: a systematic review and research agenda”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-33, doi: 10.1108/jstp-01-2020-0024.

Rahman, A., Björk, P. and Ravald, A. (2020), “Effects of healthcare service provider's organizational socialization and support on patients' well-being”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 105-123, doi: 10.1080/15332969.2020.1742978.

Rai, R.S. (2018), “Facilitating transformative change in medication adherence practices”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 1-2, pp. 48-66, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1369967.

Reynoso, J., Valdés, A. and Cabrera, K. (2015), “Breaking new ground: base-of-pyramid service research”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 13, pp. 695-709, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2015.1079818.

Roberts, J.L. and World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe (1998), Terminology: A Glossary of Technical Terms on The Economics and Finance of Health Services, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108335 (accessed 29 May 2023).

Robertson, N., Tsarenko, Y., Polonsky, M.J. and McQuilken, L. (2021), “Vulnerability in in-vitro fertilization transformative services: an interplay of individual and institutional factors”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 706-721, doi: 10.1108/jsm-07-2020-0306.

Rosenbaum, M.S. (2015), “Transformative service research: focus on well-being”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 7-8, pp. 363-367, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2015.1025061.

Rosenbaum, M.S. and Smallwood, J. (2013), “Cancer resource centers as third places”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 472-484, doi: 10.1108/jsm-10-2011-0147.

Rosenbaum, M., Corus, C., Ostrom, A., Anderson, L., Fisk, R., Gallan, A., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S., Shirahada, K. and Williams, J. (2011), “Conceptualisation and aspirations of transformative service research”, Journal of Research for Consumers, Vol. 19, pp. 1-6.

Rosenbaum, M.S., Sweeney, J.C. and Massiah, C. (2014), “The restorative potential of senior centers”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 363-383, doi: 10.1108/msq-11-2013-0264.

Rosenbaum, M.S., Kim, K., Ramirez, G.C., Orejuela, A.R. and Park, J. (2021), “Improving well-being via adaptive reuse: transformative repurposed service organizations”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 3-4, pp. 223-247, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2019.1615897.

Roussos, S.T. and Fawcett, S.B. (2000), “A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health”, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 369-402, doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369.

Sawang, S., Chou, C.Y. and Truong-Dinh, B.Q. (2019), “The perception of crowding, quality and well-being: a study of Vietnamese public health services”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 460-477, doi: 10.1108/jhom-08-2018-0233.

Sawyerr, E. and Harrison, C. (2023), “Resilience in healthcare supply chains: a review of the UK’s response to the COVID19 pandemic”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 297-329.

Schuster, L., Drennan, J. and Lings, I. (2015), “Understanding consumers’ decisions to adopttechnology-enabled transformative services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos15-16, pp. 846-864.

Severt, D., Aiello, T., Elswick, S. and Cyr, C. (2008), “Hospitality in hospitals?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 664-678, doi: 10.1108/09596110810892227.

Sharma, S., Conduit, J. and Hill, S.R. (2017), “Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 397-411, doi: 10.1108/jsm-06-2016-0236.

Snyder, H. (2019), “Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, pp. 333-339, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.

Sweeney, J.C., Dagger, T.S. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2015), “Customer effort in value co-creation: improving quality of life and behavioral intentions of healthcare customers”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 318-335, doi: 10.1177/1094670515572128.

Taiminen, H., Taiminen, K. and Munnukka, J. (2020), “Enabling transformative value creation through online weight loss services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 797-808, doi: 10.1108/jsm-05-2019-0191.

Tallandini, M.A. and Scalembra, C. (2006), “Kangaroo mother care and mother‐premature infant dyadic interaction”, Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 251-275, doi: 10.1002/imhj.20091.

Tang, C., Guo, L. and Gopinath, M. (2016), “A social-cognitive model of consumer well-being: a longitudinal exploration of the role of the service organization”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1177/1094670516637675.

Tarantino, E. (2006), “Troppo o troppo poco? Web of science, Scopus, Google scholar: tre database a confronto (un caso di studio)”, Bollettino AIB, Vol. 46 Nos 1-2, pp. 23-34, (1992-2011).

Teixeira, J.G., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R.P., Nobrega, L. and Constantine, L. (2017), “The MINDS method: integrating management and interaction design perspectives for service design”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 240-258, doi: 10.1177/1094670516680033.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge using systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.

Ungaro, V., Di Pietro, L., Renzi, M.F., Guglielmetti Mugion, R. and Pasca, M.G. (2022), “Transformative service research: a conceptual framework based on consumer's perspective”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 140-157, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-04-2021-0163.

United Nations (2018), “Leaving the LDCs category: booming Bangladesh prepares to graduate”, available at: https://www.un.org/en/desa/leaving-ldcs-category-booming-bangladesh-prepares-graduate (accessed 3 March 2023).

Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of servicedominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-67, doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001.

Vink, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., Tronvoll, B., Edvardsson, B. and Wetter-Edman, K. (2021), “Service ecosystem design: propositions, process model, and future research agenda”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 168-186, doi: 10.1177/1094670520952537.

Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A. and Stuckler, D. (2019), “Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 240, 112552, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552.

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii.

Yang, E.C.L., Khoo-Lattimore, C. and Arcodia, C. (2017), “A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 58, pp. 89-100, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.011.

Zayer, L.T., Otnes, C.C. and Fischer, E.M. (2015), “The nature and implications of consumers' experiential framings of failure in high-risk service contexts”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 303-317, doi: 10.1177/1094670514559187.

Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.Jo and Gremler, D.E. (2009), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.

Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 429-472, doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.

Corresponding author

Maria Francesca Renzi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mariafrancesca.renzi@uniroma3.it

About the authors

Veronica Ungaro is assistant professor at the Department of Business Studies, University of Roma Tre, Italy. She holds a PhD in quality, innovation and sustainability. She is interested in transformative service research, quality management, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, service quality and innovation applied in different sectors such as healthcare, transport, tourism and education. She was involved in several research projects related to these themes. Dr Ungaro has published her research in several international journals such as International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences and International Journal of Nursing and Health Care Research. She is a member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science (AISME) and the Italian Academy for Business Economics (AIDEA).

Laura Di Pietro is assistant professor at the Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University. She earned her PhD in Commodity Science and Quality Management in 2014. At Roma Tre University she teaches Corporate Social Responsibility and Quality Management. Dr Di Pietro’s research interests pertain to three main areas: service innovation, service ecosystem and value creation; Sustainability and Transformative Service Research; and Quality Management and Continuous Improvement. She studies those topics in different sectors (e.g. healthcare, transport, cultural heritage and tourism). She has published her research in a number of international journals, including the Journal of Service Management, The BMC health services research, the Journal of Service Theory and Practice, the Journal of cleaner production, the TQM journal and others. Dr Di Pietro won three Best Conference Paper Awards and an Emerald Outstanding Paper in 2016. She is involved in national and international research projects in the public and private sectors. She is a member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science (AISME) and the Italian Academy for Business Economics (AIDEA).

Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion is an associate professor at the Department of Business Studies, University of Roma Tre, Italy. She holds a PhD in Commodity science and Quality Management. She is interested in quality management in the private and public sector, quality of the food and agriculture, quality, innovation, sustainability and circular economy in service, healthcare management. In particular, she focuses on citizens’ satisfaction and consumers’ behavior. She is part of many research projects related to the total quality management diffusion in service. She has published her research in a number of international journals, including the Journal of Service Management, The BMC health services research, the Journal of Service Theory and Practice, the Journal of cleaner production, the TQM journal, TQM & Business Excellence and others. Dr Di Pietro won three Best Conference Paper Awards and an Emerald Outstanding Paper in 2016. She is involved in national and international research projects in the public and private sectors. She is a member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science (AISME) and the Italian Academy for Business Economics (AIDEA).

Maria Francesca Renzi is a full professor in the Department of Business Studies at Roma Tre University. She teaches Quality Management, Corporate Social Responsibility and Quality Systems. Her areas of interest involve quality management in the public and private sectors, service quality, quality and environmental management systems and corporate social responsibility. In these fields, she has published 92 scientific contributions. She has published her research in a number of international journals, including the Journal of Service Management, the Journal of Service Theory and Practice, the TQM journal, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence and others. She serves as coordinator of many national and international research projects related to TQM diffusion. She won two Best Conference Paper Awards and an Emerald Outstanding Paper in 2016. She is involved in several national committees as a quality assessor. She is a member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science (AISME) and the Italian Academy for Business Economics (AIDEA).

Related articles