JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Online physician rating (OPR) information is becoming increasingly popular among health consumers in China; however, the limited number of reviews generated by patients greatly hampers consumers’ usage. Thus far, there has been little discussion on variables that influence OPR information generation, from the users’ perspective.

Objective:

To investigate different factors associated with the actual behavior and intention of generating OPR information in urban China.

Methods:

An online cross-sectional survey of 1371 valid Chinese health consumers was conducted. Based on a pilot interview, we analyzed the impact of demographics, health variables, cognitive variables, and technology-related variables. Binary multivariate logistic regression, multiple linear regression, and one-way ANOVA analyses were performed for elaborating the characteristics of health consumers’ rating behavior and intention. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and pilot interview.

Results:

In all, 56.7% (778/1371) of the sample used OPR information, and 20.9% (287/1371) had rated physicians online at least once (posters). Actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors. It was associated with experience of seeking physician information online (OR=5.548, 95% CI: 3.072-10.017, p<.001), usage of online physician service (OR=2.771, 95% CI: 1.979-3.879, p<.001), health information seeking ability (OR=1.138, 95% CI: .993-1.304, p=.039), serious diseases (OR=2.699, 95% CI: 1.889-3.856, p<.001), good medical experience (OR=2.149, 95% CI:1.473-3.135, p<.001), altruism (OR=.612, 95% CI:.483-.774, p<.001), self-efficacy (OR=1.453, 95% CI:1.182-1.787, p<.001), and trust in OPR information (OR=1.315, 95% CI:1.089-1.586, p=.004). Furthermore, some factors influencing the intentions of rating physicians online for posters and were different, and rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking physician information online (beta=.486, p=.007), usage of online medical service (beta=.420, p=.002), health information seeking ability (beta=.193, p=.002), rating habit (beta=.105, p=.019), altruism (beta=.414, p<.001), self-efficacy (beta=.102, p=.061), trust (beta=.351, p<.001), and perceived ease of use (beta=.275, p<.001) served as significant predictors of rating intention. For non-posters, health information seeking ability (beta=.077, p=.003), chronic disease (beta=.092, p=.062), bad medical experience (beta=.047, p=.019), rating habit (beta=.085, p<.001), altruism (beta=.411, p<.001), self-efficacy (beta=.171, p<.001), trust (beta=.252, p<.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians (beta=.109, p<.001) were significantly related to rating intention.

Conclusions:

Factors affecting physician rating behavior and intention were different. Health-related variables played a more important role in consumers’ physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were more critical for consumers’ rating intention. Some health and technology-related factors that influence the rating intention of posters and non-posters were different. We proposed some practical implications for PRWs and physicians to promote OPR information generation.