<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JHRSS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2328-4862</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jhrss.2024.122015</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JHRSS-133021</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Business&amp;Economics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Service Delivery between 2013 and 2021&amp;#8212;A Systematic Review
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Uchechi</surname><given-names>Chinazom Ekejiuba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Umar</surname><given-names>Abbas Ibrahim</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Faculty of Management Sciences, Nile University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>19</day><month>04</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>275</fpage><lpage>288</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>30,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2024</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>6,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>9,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Service delivery is seen as the act of providing citizens with basic amenities of electricity, water, housing, etc. by the government of any nation. However, this has been viewed to be capital intensive for some developing nations with high population and limited resources despite its necessity for economic growth and development. This article employs the Systematic Quantitative Assessment Technique (SQAT) propounded by Pickering and Byrne in 2014 to systematically review 50 articles published between 2013 and 2021 by 6 reputable data bases across 32 nations and 6 continents. The review itemized the themes adopted by various countries to overcome specific challenges to provide affordable and quality services to its citizens. Majority of the articles were empirical in nature while a few were conceptual. The highest number of published articles was found in Asian, African, and European continents while North America, Australia and South America had the least number of published articles. Survey, secondary data, and interviews were the highest methods of data collection while mixed and household level data were the least. It is advised that future research should be geared towards mixed data collection for effective comparison and validation of existing information (secondary data) that may have been used.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Service Delivery</kwd><kwd> Systematic Quantitative Assessment Technique</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The public sector of any country is the largest provider of service and by extension, the largest employer of labour in the organised formal sector. One of the sector’s main responsibilities is the provision of social and economic infrastructure. While economic infrastructure refers mainly to the provision of potable water, good roads, electricity, air transport, communication networks and sewage, social infrastructure includes affordable schools, hospitals, and housing.</p><p>It becomes obvious then, that both are essential aspects of living for any twenty-first century nation. It is expected that the provision of these basic services to citizens is the main responsibility of the government of any nation as it is believed the citizens pay taxes. However, this is not the case in many developing and some developed countries especially for specific services as various interventions had come up to assist the Central government of such nations in their inadequacies.</p><p>Existing research reveals that there has been growing public impatience related to the provision of essential service delivery in developing countries such as South Africa and this may have led to their service delivery protests  (Masiya et al., 2019) . On the contrary, some countries who experienced warfare like Afghanistan had ensured that basic services were still made available to citizens. The Taliban were forced to become responsible for the wellbeing of local communities as they consolidated their hold over territory  (Smith, 2020) .</p><p>This study is aimed at conducting a systematic review of articles on service delivery published in different countries between 2013 and 2021 and evaluating how it has evolved within this period. The review will be done in three (3) sections namely: Methodology section which describes the development and analysis of the study, the findings, and discussions section for the review and finally, the conclusion and recommendations of the study.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methodology</title><p>This research reviews Service Delivery (SD) articles in the last eight (8) years (2013-2021) using Pickering and Byrne’s 2014 Systematic Quantitative Assessment Technique (SQAT). This technique allows researchers to systematically analyse existing literature on any field and produce a structured quantitative summary of the subject  (Pickering &amp; Byrne 2014) . Five steps are recommended in conducting an effective systematic review. The steps and application are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></p><p>The researcher studied 50 SD peer reviewed English articles from 6 reputable databases that met selection criteria (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). These are Scopus indexed journals which the academic community respects due to their inclusion in Scopus index. It is also a useful tool for organizations and libraries for evaluating the quality and significance of journals in their holdings.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Findings and Discussions</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Time Distribution of Articles on Service Delivery (SD)</title><p>The systematic review showed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> that 39 out of the 50 articles (78%) were published in the last 5 years of the eight-year period i.e. (2017-2021).</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the distribution of Service Delivery articles across Continents and their respective Authors.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Description and application</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >S/N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Dimensions</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Application in the current study</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Define topic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Service Delivery (SD) articles published between 2013 and 2021.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Develop research questions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1) What is the time distribution of the service delivery articles? 2) Countries in which research was undertaken? 3) What kind of SD articles were published? (Conceptual vs. Empirical). 4) What are the methods of data collection? 5) What are the specific themes these articles explored and what were the major findings of those themes?</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Key words identified</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >“Service Delivery”</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The databases were identified and searched</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1) Six databases were utilized namely: Jstor, Emerald, Elsevier, Ingenta, Taylor and Francis, Wiley. 2) All in title search using the phrase “Service Delivery”.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Read and assess publications</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1) Abstracts and excerpts from articles were read to ensure subject aligns with service delivery. Findings and conclusions were also read to make suggestions. 2) Only peer-reviewed conceptual and empirical articles were included.</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> SD articles reviewed by publishers (2013-2021)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Publisher</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of SD articles</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jstor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Emerald</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Elsevier</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ingenta</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Taylor and Francis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Wiley</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Continental distribution of SD articles and their authors</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >S/N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Continent</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No. of Articles</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Authors</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Africa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Abdulkareem &amp; Mohd Ramli, 2021; Adaku et al., 2018; Akinboade et al., 2013; Biljohn &amp; Lues, 2019; Falisse &amp; Leszczynska, 2022; Kuye &amp; Akinwale, 2020; Li et al., 2019; Masiya et al., 2019; Musenze &amp; Mayende, 2019; Phiri, 2017; Tassabehji et al., 2019; Yusheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2019 )</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Abdullah et al., 2016; Anwer Anwer et al., 2016; Aruan et al., 2018; Abdelkader Benmansour, 2019; Chakraborty et al., 2021; Jain Gupta &amp; Suri, 2017; Hwang et al., 2021; Kekez et al., 2018; Lanin &amp; Hermanto, 2019; Nayak &amp; Samanta, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2021; Saxena, 2017; Siddiquee, 2016; Siddiquee, 2019; Siddiquee &amp; Xavier, 2020; Smith, 2020; ur Rahim &amp; Shirazi, 2018; Uzir et al., 2021; Seyitoğlu &amp; Ivanov, 2020 )</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Australia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Aruan et al., 2018; Oslington, 2015 )</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Europe</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Biljohn &amp; Lues, 2019; Bozic, 2020; Imran et al., 2019; Psomas et al., 2020; Seepma et al., 2020; Steiner et al., 2018; Van de Walle, 2016; Bucaite Vilke &amp; Vilkas, 2018; Voorberg et al., 2017; Williams &amp; Radnor, 2022 )</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >North America</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Healey &amp; Evans, 2014; Loeffler &amp; Church, 2015; Mick &amp; Shay, 2014; Shadi et al., 2023 )</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >South America</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >( Lopes et al., 2019; Valle-Cruz, 2019 )</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Geographical Distribution of Articles on SD</title><p>From the continent perspective, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows that Asia had the highest number of SD articles published within the last eight years representing 40% of the peer reviewed articles, followed by Africa and Europe with 22% respectively. The least published articles are from North America (10%), Australia (4%) and South America (2%). This distribution aligns with the introduction section where it stated that existing research reveals that there is growing impatience in the provision of essential service delivery in developing countries  (Masiya et al., 2019) . The review of SD articles within this time frame shows that Asian Continent is leading in the research on service delivery.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows the distribution of the 50 peer reviewed SD articles published across 32 countries.</p><p>The top four countries that have the highest number of published SD articles between 2013 and 2021 is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>.</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> reveals that the number of articles from Malaysia, United States, India, and Ghana which are just from three continents, account for 16 out of the total of 50 peer reviewed articles representing 32% of the published articles within the last eight years. It is also relevant to note that the articles from Malaysia, India and Ghana focused on reforms for improved service delivery as there is</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> 32 countries and their respective number of published SD articles</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >S/N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Country</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No. of articles</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Afghanistan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Australia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Austria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bangladesh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Belgium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bosnia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brazil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bulgaria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Burundi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Estonia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ethiopia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Germany</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ghana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Greece</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >India</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Indonesia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Korea</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lithuania</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malaysia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mexico</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Netherlands</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nigeria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pakistan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Qatar</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Singapore</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >South Africa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Switzerland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uganda</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >United Kingdom</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >United States</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vietnam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zambia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>little or no research on developing countries on the impact of E-governances in curbing corruption  (Saxena, 2017) . The articles from the United States on the other hand focused on emerging trends such as advances in health care, child services and excellent customer service.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Article Type</title><p>Out of 50 peer-reviewed articles, 39 of them were empirical research while only 11 were conceptual research representing 78% and 22% respectively. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> shows the distribution.</p><p>The empirical research consisted of primary and secondary data collection employed as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method for analysis. Whilst empirical articles rely on data collection and conclusions are drawn based on the premises of the findings from data collection; conceptual articles rely on theoretical discussions based on other people’s views and literature. In general, empirical research, if tested and proven can either validate or invalidate existing theories and concepts.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. SD Data Collection Methods</title><p>There were six (6) data collection methods across the 50 articles as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>. These are case study, household level data, interviews, mixed data, survey, and secondary data. Whilst the mixed and secondary data were employed for conceptual articles, the rest of the methods (case study, household level, interviews) were employed strictly for the empirical articles.</p><p>For future research, it is advised that mixed methods of data be adopted for effective comparison of existing information with evidence from experiments to validate the existing information.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. SD Research Themes</title><p>Nine themes were employed to analyze the 50 SD articles used for the systematic review. This is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref> reveals that Collaboration and E-Governance themes have the highest number of articles representing 26% and 24% of the total number of researched articles respectively. From the reviews, collaboration was either between government and private agencies, government and its citizens, inter-agencies, intergovernmental relations or among citizens. The introduction of Government transformation programs in Malaysia through fostering inter agency collaboration improved service delivery  (Siddiquee, 2019) . The E-service themes were research done mainly in Asian and African countries where technology is still developing. The introduction of Information and Computer Technology (ICT) leads to better service delivery as it increases efficiency, transparency, and accountability  (Seepma et al., 2020) . Performance measurement theme assessed service delivery by government and private sector respectively. In Quatar, it was found that there was a higher level of satisfaction in public services compared to independent schools  (Abdelkader Benmansour, 2019) . Furthermore, Innovativeness, Good governance, Customer satisfaction and Quality healthcare were themes that if applied, would lead to quality service delivery while Corruption and Bureaucracy negatively affected service delivery.</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. SD Theories/Models</title><p>A total of 27 theories were used for 33 out of the 50 researched articles while no theory was used for the remaining 17 articles. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref> shows a distribution of the articles using theories/models but highlights only the top four. The Institutional theory and Partial least square model which ranked highest were used for 3 articles each representing 6% of the total reviewed articles while the hypothetical and strategic models which followed closely were used for 2 articles each representing 4% of the total reviewed articles. 23 articles representing 46% of the total reviewed articles and stated as “others” in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>, had a different theory/model used for each research while no theory was used for 17 articles representing 34% of the total reviewed articles. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> shows the 23 theories/models used for the remaining 23 reviewed articles not highlighted in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s3_7"><title>3.7. Summary of Findings of Reviewed 50 SD Articles</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref> presents the findings of this systematic review of 50 SD articles published between 2013 and 2021.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> 23 theories used for the remaining 23 reviewed articles</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >S/N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Theory</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No. of articles</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bureaucratic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Contingency</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Case study</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decentralization</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Descriptive and inferential statistics</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Expectation disconfirmation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >G2C evaluation model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Heuristic model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helsuki model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maturity model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Information system</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multi variate linear progression</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiple choice model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Field experiment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Organizational theory</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Public Mgt service</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Policy capacity model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Probit model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Process redesign approach</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Startup Bus. model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thematic content analysis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Servperf model</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Theoretical assumption</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Summary of findings of 50 SD reviewed articles</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Headings</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Key findings</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Implication</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time Distribution of articles</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD articles were published every year within the period of review. However, the last 5 years had the highest number of published articles.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Service Delivery is gaining recognition as time goes by.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Geographic Distribution of articles</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All the 32 countries that published at least one SD article within the last 8 years were represented across all six habitable continents.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >There is need for more SD research in countries of both South and North American continents as only 1 and 5 articles respectively were published for the 2 continents within the review period.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Article type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 of the reviewed articles were empirical in nature while the remaining 11 were conceptual articles.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Publishing of more empirical articles is encouraged for future research for effective comparison of existing information to evidence from experiments and validation of existing information.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Data Collection Method</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Six data collection methods were identified with survey being the highest while mixed data and household level were the least used.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mixed data as well as household level data to be used for future research to obtain an objective view of the research with the inclusion of grassroot data.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Research Themes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nine (9) themes were identified in the reviewed articles. 50% of these articles used collaboration and E-governance themes which affected service delivery quality positively while Bureaucracy and Corruption were themes identified that negatively affected service delivery.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All nine (9) themes had strong influence on service delivery depending on its application.</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion and Recommendation</title><p>The significance of service delivery cannot be overemphasized anywhere in the world. However, from this systematic review, it is obvious that the developing nations have higher numbers of researched articles in service delivery, possibly due to citizens’ inability to access basic public services provided by the government. This would normally be due to paucity of funds and/or limited technology. This systematic review has brought to the fore options and possible solutions responsible agencies or governments experiencing such challenges could adopt to improve service delivery quality and impact their economies positively. Some of which are:</p><p>1) Investment in digital infrastructure to automate processes for seamless service delivery.</p><p>2) Regular monitoring and evaluation of service providers to identify bottlenecks and areas of improvement.</p><p>3) Customer engagement and feedback through surveys and public consultations to understand their preferences.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Ekejiuba, U. C., &amp; Ibrahim, U. A. (2024). Service Delivery between 2013 and 2021—A Systematic Review. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 12, 275-288. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2024.122015</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.133021-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdelkader Benmansour, N. (2019). Citizens and Expatriates&amp;#8217; Satisfaction with Public Services in Qatar&amp;#8212;Evidence from a Survey. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Social Economics, 46,&lt;/i&gt; 326-337. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2018-0118</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdulkareem, A. K., &amp; Mohd Ramli, R. (2021). Does Trust in E-Government Influence the Performance of E-Government? An Integration of Information System Success Model and Public Value Theory. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Po&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;l&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;icy&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;, 16, &lt;/i&gt;1-17. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2021-0001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdullah, N. A., Mohd Noor, N. L., &amp; Mior Ibrahim, E. N. (2016). Contributing Factors to E-Government Service Disruptions. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10,&lt;/i&gt; 120-138. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2014-0045</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yusheng, K., &amp; Ibrahim, M. (2019). Service Innovation, Service Delivery and Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in the Banking Sector of Ghana. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37,&lt;/i&gt; 1215-1233. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-06-2018-0142</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Williams, S. J., &amp; Radnor, Z. J. (2022). Moving from Service to Sustainable Services: A Healthcare Case Study. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Productivity and Performance Ma&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;agement&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;, 71, &lt;/i&gt;1126-1148. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2019-0583</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., &amp; Tummers, L. (2017). Changing Public Service Delivery: Learning in Co-Creation. &lt;i&gt;Policy and Society, 36,&lt;/i&gt; 178-194. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1323711</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Van de Walle, S. (2016). When Public Services Fail: A Research Agenda on Public Service Failure. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Service Management, 27,&lt;/i&gt; 831-846. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2016-0092</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Valle-Cruz, D. (2019). Public Value of E-Government Services through Emerging Technologies. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32,&lt;/i&gt; 530-545. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0072</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Uzir, M. U., Al Halbusi, H., Thurasamy, R., Thiam Hock, R. L., Aljaberi, M. A., Hasan, N., &amp; Hamid, M. (2021). The Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value and Trust in Home Delivery Service Personnel on Customer Satisfaction: Evidence from a Developing Country. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63,&lt;/i&gt; Article 102721. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102721</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">ur Rahim, F., &amp; Shirazi, N. S. (2018). Fiscal Decentralization and Citizen&amp;#8217;s Satisfaction from Local Public Service Delivery in Pakistan. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 34,&lt;/i&gt; 122-142. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-04-2017-0066</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tassabehji, R., Hackney, R., &amp; Maruyama, T. (2019). Evaluating Digital Public Services. &lt;i&gt;Information Technology &amp; People, 32,&lt;/i&gt; 1021-1043. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2017-0260</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Steiner, R., Kaiser, C., Tapscott, C., &amp; Navarro, C. (2018). Is Local Always Better? Strengths and Limitations of Local Governance for Service Delivery. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31,&lt;/i&gt; 394-409. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2018-226</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, S. S. (2020). &lt;i&gt;Service Delivery in Taliban-Influenced Areas of Afghanistan&lt;/i&gt;. United States Institute of Peace. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiquee, N. A., &amp; Xavier, J. A. (2020). Collaborative Approach to Public Service Improvement: The Malaysian Experience and Lessons. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34,&lt;/i&gt; 17-32. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2020-0122</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiquee, N. A. (2019). Driving Performance in the Public Sector: What Can We Learn from Malaysia&amp;#8217;s Service Delivery Reform? &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69,&lt;/i&gt; 2069-2087. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2018-0232</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiquee, N. A. (2016). E-Government and Transformation of Service Delivery in Developing Countries. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10,&lt;/i&gt; 368-390. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2015-0039</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shadi, M. S., Rubin, J. S., Geneid, A., Magdy, E., &amp; Ibrahim, R. A. (2023). Adjustment of Health-Care Service Delivery among Phoniatricians and ENT Specialists during the COVID-19 Pandemic, a UEP Survey. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Voice&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;, 37, &lt;/i&gt;803.e1-803.e9. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.04.017 </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seyito&amp;#287;lu, F., &amp; Ivanov, S. (2020). A Conceptual Framework of the Service Delivery System Design for Hospitality Firms in the (Post-)Viral World: The Role of Service Robots. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91,&lt;/i&gt; Article 102661. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102661</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seepma, A. P., De Blok, C., &amp; Van Donk, D. P. (2020). Designing Digital Public Service Supply Chains: Four Country-Based Cases in Criminal Justice. &lt;i&gt;Supply Chain Manag&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ment: An International Journal, 26,&lt;/i&gt; 418-446. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2019-0111</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Saxena, S. (2017). Factors Influencing Perceptions on Corruption in Public Service Delivery via E-Government Platform. &lt;i&gt;Foresight, 19,&lt;/i&gt; 628-646. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2017-0013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rahman, M. K., Newaz, M. S., Hemmati, M., &amp; Mallick, S. M. (2021). Analyzing Health-Care Service Environment with Malaysian General Practice Clinics. &lt;i&gt;Health Education, 121,&lt;/i&gt; 246-264. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-10-2020-0106</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Psomas, E., Bouranta, N., Koemtzi, M., &amp; Keramida, E. (2020). Determining the Impact of Service Quality on Citizens&amp;#8217; Satisfaction and the Role of Citizens&amp;#8217; Demographics. The Case of the Greek Citizen&amp;#8217;s Service Centers. &lt;i&gt;The TQM Journal&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0274</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pickering, C., &amp; Byrne, J. (2014). The Benefits of Publishing Systematic Quantitative Literature Reviews for PhD Candidates and Other Early-Career Researchers. &lt;i&gt;Higher Education Research &amp; Development, 33,&lt;/i&gt; 534-548. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Phiri, J. (2017). Stakeholder Expectations of Performance in Public Healthcare Services. &lt;i&gt;Meditari Accountancy Research, 25,&lt;/i&gt; 136-157. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2016-0070</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Oslington, P. (2015). Sacred and Secular in Australian Social Services. &lt;i&gt;Pacifica: Austral&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;sian Theological Studies, 28,&lt;/i&gt; 79-93. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/1030570X15619782</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nguyen, T. V., Bach, T. N., Le, T. Q., &amp; Le, C. Q. (2017). Local Governance, Corruption, and Public Service Quality: Evidence from a National Survey in Vietnam. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30,&lt;/i&gt; 137-153. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2016-0128</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nayak, N. C., &amp; Samanta, D. (2014). Understanding the Role of Participation in Public Service Delivery: Evidence from Rural West Bengal, India. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Administration, 37,&lt;/i&gt; 875-884. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.928313</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Musenze, I. A., &amp; Mayende, T. S. (2019). Coordination and Quality Service Delivery in Service Organizations: Qualitative Investigation. &lt;i&gt;Journal of African Business, 22,&lt;/i&gt; 190-208. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1699758</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mick, S. S., &amp; Shay, P. D. (2014). &lt;i&gt;Advances in Health Care Organization Theory&lt;/i&gt;. Jossey-Bass. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Masiya</surname><given-names> T.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Davids</surname><given-names> Y. D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> &amp; Mangai</surname><given-names> M. S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2019</year>)<article-title>. Assessing Service Delivery: Public Perception of Municipal Service Delivery in South Africa</article-title><source> &lt;i&gt;Theoretical and Empirical R&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;searches in Urban Management</source><volume> 14</volume>,<fpage> &lt;/i&gt;20</fpage>-<lpage>40</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopes, K. M., Macadar, M. A., &amp; Luciano, E. M. (2019). Key Drivers for Public Value Creation Enhancing the Adoption of Electronic Public Services by Citizens. &lt;i&gt;Intern&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tional Journal of Public Sector Management, 32,&lt;/i&gt; 546-561. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2018-0081</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Loeffler, B., &amp; Church, B. (2015). &lt;i&gt;The Experience: The 5 Principles of Disney Service and Relationship Excellence&lt;/i&gt;. John Wiley &amp; Sons. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119153795</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, W., Pomegbe, W. W., Dogbe, C. S., &amp; Novixoxo, J. D. (2019). Employees&amp;#8217; Customer Orientation and Customer Satisfaction in the Public Utility Sector. &lt;i&gt;African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 10,&lt;/i&gt; 408-423. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-10-2018-0314</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lanin, D., &amp; Hermanto, N. (2019). The Effect of Service Quality toward Public Satisfaction and Public Trust on Local Government in Indonesia. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of S&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;o&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;cial Economics, 46,&lt;/i&gt; 377-392. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-04-2017-0151</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kuye, O. L., &amp; Akinwale, O. E. (2020). Conundrum of Bureaucratic Processes and Healthcare Service Delivery in Government Hospitals in Nigeria. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Human&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ties and Applied Social Sciences, 3,&lt;/i&gt; 25-48. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-12-2019-0081</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kekez, A., Howlett, M., &amp; Ramesh, M. (2018). Varieties of Collaboration in Public Service Delivery. &lt;i&gt;Policy Design and Practice, 1,&lt;/i&gt; 243-252. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1532026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jain Gupta, P., &amp; Suri, P. (2017). Measuring Public Value of E-Governance Projects in India: Citizens&amp;#8217; Perspective. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11,&lt;/i&gt; 236-261. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2016-0043</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Imran, M. A., Abdulrahman Sambo, Y., &amp; Abbasi, Q. H. (2019). &lt;i&gt;Enabling 5G Commun&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;cation Systems to Support Vertical Industries&lt;/i&gt;. John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119515579</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hwang, J., Kim, J. J., &amp; Lee, K.-W. (2021). Investigating Consumer Innovativeness in the Context of Drone Food Delivery Services: Its Impact on Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. &lt;i&gt;Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163,&lt;/i&gt; Article 120433. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120433</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Healey, B. J., &amp; Evans, T. M. (2014). &lt;i&gt;Introduction to Health Care Services: Foundations and Challenges&lt;/i&gt;. John Wiley &amp; Sons. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Falisse, J.-B., &amp; Leszczynska, N. (2022). Do Anti-Corruption Messages Improve Public Service Delivery? Insights from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Burundi. &lt;i&gt;The Journal of Development Studies,&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt; 58,&lt;/i&gt; 96-114. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2021.1969010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chakraborty, I., Ilavarasan, P. V., &amp; Edirippulige, S. (2021). Health-Tech Startups in Healthcare Service Delivery: A Scoping Review. &lt;i&gt;Social Science &amp; Medicine, 278,&lt;/i&gt; Article 113949. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113949</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bucaite Vilke, J., &amp; Vilkas, M. (2018). Discussing Municipal Performance Alternatives. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31,&lt;/i&gt; 525-542. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bozic, A. (2020). Global Trends in a Fragile Context: Public-Nonpublic Collaboration, Service Delivery and Social Innovation. &lt;i&gt;Social Enterprise Journal, 17,&lt;/i&gt; 260-279. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2019-0100</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Biljohn, M. I., &amp; Lues, L. (2019). Social Innovation and Service Delivery in Belgium and South Africa. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 13,&lt;/i&gt; 143-158. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2018-0070</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aruan, D. T., Crouch, R., &amp; Quester, P. (2018). Relative Importance of Country of Service Delivery, Country of Person and Country of Brand in Hybrid Service Evaluation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Product &amp; Brand Management, 27,&lt;/i&gt; 819-831. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2017-1608</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anwer Anwer, M., Esichaikul, V., Rehman, M., &amp; Anjum, M. (2016). E-Government Services Evaluation from Citizen Satisfaction Perspective. &lt;i&gt;Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10,&lt;/i&gt; 139-167. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2015-0017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akinboade, O. A., Putuma Mokwena, M., &amp; Kinfack, E. C. (2013). Understanding Citizens&amp;#8217; Participation in Service Delivery Protests in South Africa&amp;#8217;s Sedibeng District Municipality. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Social Economics, 40,&lt;/i&gt; 458-478. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291311315331</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133021-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adaku, E., Amoako-Gyampah, K., Lomotey, S. N., Amoatey, C. T., &amp; Famiyeh, S. (2018). Improving Public Sector Service Delivery: A Developing Economy Experience. &lt;i&gt;Inte&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;r&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;national Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67,&lt;/i&gt; 1132-1146. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2017-0129</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>