A scientific study on the General Healthcare System records low performance across key user experience indicators, with waiting times and service quality receiving the most negative evaluations. At the same time, citizens’ expectations remain particularly high, creating a visible gap between current experience and anticipated performance.
The study was conducted by researchers at the Cyprus University of Technology and was published last month in an international scientific journal. It was based on 445 responses from adult GESY users, using stratified sampling. Participants completed a structured questionnaire on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represented “very negative experience”, 3 “neutral” and 5 “very positive experience”.
Overall assessment
Across the main indicators reflecting overall user experience, scores fall below the neutral threshold. Specifically:
- Overall satisfaction with the GHS records a mean of 2.6 out of 5
- Trust in the system stands at 2.4 out of 5
- Reliability in daily operation records 2.3 out of 5
These results indicate that core aspects of user perception remain below neutral levels.
Waiting times at the centre of concern
The most pronounced finding concerns waiting times. On satisfaction with waiting time for appointments or treatments, the mean score stands at 2.1 out of 5.
More than 80% of respondents selected the two lowest points on the scale, 1 or 2. This means that eight out of ten users report dissatisfaction with the time required to access services. The finding helps explain the overall low satisfaction indicators and identifies waiting times as a key friction point in the system’s operation.
Quality of services
The evaluation of the quality of healthcare services received within the GESY is also low. The relevant index records a mean of 2.4 out of 5, clearly below the neutral level.
Most responses cluster at the lower end of the scale, indicating that users do not assess the quality of care positively based on their experience. The study does not analyse the causes behind this perception, but the finding is clear: as experienced by users, service quality is seen as problematic.
Access and ease of use
One of the less negative indicators concerns ease of access to GESY services, with a mean score of 2.9 out of 5. This approaches, but does not exceed, the neutral point.
Researchers clarify that this indicator does not measure geographical distance or regional disparities. Instead, it assesses how easily a user can find a provider, book an appointment and receive services without excessive bureaucracy. Even in this comparatively stronger area, user experience is not recorded as clearly satisfactory.
Expectations for the future
The sharpest contrast appears in the expectations index. Here, the mean rises to 4.2 out of 5, close to the maximum positive rating.
This finding shows that, despite low evaluations of current experience, users continue to expect significant improvement from the GESY. Expectations remain strong, suggesting that the system has not been rejected as an institution.
Before and after the GHS
The study also compares user experience before and after the introduction of the GESY. Participants were asked to assess, on a scale of 1 to 5, whether aspects such as overall service and quality of care are better, the same or worse compared to the pre-GESY period.
The overall index for this comparison remains below neutral, indicating that, on average, users do not consider their overall healthcare experience to have improved substantially since the introduction of the system.
There is, however, a clear exception. In terms of financial affordability of care, users evaluate the situation more positively after the introduction of the GESY, recognising that it has reduced the financial burden of healthcare.
The main advantage of the GESY is therefore identified in cost and financial accessibility rather than in overall user experience. Despite reduced financial strain on citizens, other aspects, including quality, waiting times and system functionality, are not assessed as clearly improved compared to the period before its implementation.