文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites.

作者信息

Terlutter Ralf, Bidmon Sonja, Röttl Johanna

机构信息

Department of Marketing and International Management, Alpen-Adria Universitaet Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt am Woerthersee, Austria.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 31;16(3):e97. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3145.


DOI:10.2196/jmir.3145
PMID:24686918
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004145/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs. OBJECTIVE: We focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers. METHODS: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients' knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions. RESULTS: A total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t967=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ(2) 1=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ(2) 4=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ(2) 1=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t489=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t520=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t612=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t559=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t367=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t619=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.

摘要

相似文献

[1]
Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites.

J Med Internet Res. 2014-3-31

[2]
What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire.

J Med Internet Res. 2014-6-11

[3]
Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.

PLoS One. 2022

[4]
An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.

J Med Internet Res. 2013-8-6

[5]
Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities.

J Med Internet Res. 2017-11-9

[6]
Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites.

J Med Internet Res. 2017-8-25

[7]
Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2018-8-29

[8]
[A Decade of Online Physician-Rating Websites in Germany: an Assessment of the Current Level of Development].

Gesundheitswesen. 2018-10

[9]
The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach.

J Med Internet Res. 2022-11-14

[10]
Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study.

J Med Internet Res. 2013-8-28

引用本文的文献

[1]
The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.

JMIR Form Res. 2023-5-4

[2]
How Do Users Respond to Mass Vaccination Centers? A Cross-Sectional Study Using Natural Language Processing on Online Reviews to Explore User Experience and Satisfaction with COVID-19 Vaccination Centers.

Vaccines (Basel). 2023-1-9

[3]
Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.

PLoS One. 2022

[4]
The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach.

J Med Internet Res. 2022-11-14

[5]
Factors Associated with the Patient/Client Use of Report Cards, Physician Rating Websites, Social Media, and Google for Hospital and Physician Selection: A Nationwide Survey.

Healthcare (Basel). 2022-10-1

[6]
A Large Number of Reviews on Physician Rating Websites May Reflect Reputation Management.

Iowa Orthop J. 2022-6

[7]
Social Media in Hip Arthroscopy Is an Underused Resource That Enhances Physician Online Reputation.

Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021-12-30

[8]
Physician Gender, Patient Risk, and Web-Based Reviews: Longitudinal Study of the Relationship Between Physicians' Gender and Their Web-Based Reviews.

J Med Internet Res. 2022-4-8

[9]
What Affects an Orthopaedic Surgeon's Online Rating? A Large-Scale, Retrospective Analysis.

J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022-3-15

[10]
Choosing a Provider: What Factors Matter Most to Consumers and Patients?

J Patient Exp. 2022-1-19

本文引用的文献

[1]
Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study.

J Med Internet Res. 2013-8-28

[2]
Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review.

J Med Internet Res. 2013-2-1

[3]
Who is more likely to use doctor-rating websites, and why? A cross-sectional study in London.

BMJ Open. 2012-11-12

[4]
Patients' ratings of family physician practices on the internet: usage and associations with conventional measures of quality in the English National Health Service.

J Med Internet Res. 2012-10-17

[5]
A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.

J Med Internet Res. 2012-2-24

[6]
What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis.

J Gen Intern Med. 2012-1-4

[7]
[German language physician rating sites].

Gesundheitswesen. 2012-8

[8]
Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites.

Methods Inf Med. 2012

[9]
Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.

J Med Internet Res. 2011-11-16

[10]
Surfing the internet for health information: an italian survey on use and population choices.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011-4-7

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索