| Literature DB >> 32771982 |
Chunhua Ju1, Shuangzhu Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The internet has become a major source of health care information for patients and has enabled them to obtain continuous diagnosis and treatment services. However, the quality of web-based health care information is mixed, which raises concerns about the credibility of physician advice obtained on the internet and markedly affects patients' choices and decision-making behavior with regard to web-based diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, it is important to identify the influencing factors of continuous use of web-based diagnosis and treatment from the perspective of trust.Entities:
Keywords: ELM; online continuous diagnosis and treatment; online health communities; patient-doctor trust; structural equation modeling; trust theory
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32771982 PMCID: PMC7551112 DOI: 10.2196/18737
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Influencing factor model of behavior toward continuous web-based diagnosis and treatment for patients with diabetes. ELM: elaboration likelihood model.
Sample of the data obtained for the study.
| Physician’s professional titlea | Hospital’s ranking levelb | Thank-you letters, n | Patient’s ratingc | Satisfaction with service attitude, % | Satisfaction with service outcome, % | Timely response rate, % | Trust propensityd | Credibility of reference groupd | Advice effectivenessd | Internet inquiries, n |
| 4 | 9 | 20 | 5 | 98.8 | 97.6 | 67 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 55 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 100.0 | 78.0 | 91 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 89.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 100.0 | 98.6 | 69 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 9 | 90 | 4 | 98.6 | 100.0 | 64 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 9 | 40 | 5 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | 9 | 65 | 5 | 97.9 | 98.8 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 8 | 38 | 5 | 98.8 | 99.0 | 63 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 3 | 9 | 40 | 3 | 98.0 | 96.0 | 66 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2 | 9 | 60 | 5 | 99.0 | 98.8 | 66 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 2 | 9 | 46 | 4 | 99.0 | 98.8 | 72 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 9 | 97 | 5 | 99.0 | 99.0 | 78 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
a1: resident physician; 2: attending physician; 3: associate chief physician; 4: chief physician.
b1: tier 1C; 2: tier 1B; 3: tier 1A; 4: tier 2C; 5: tier 2B; 6: tier 2A; 7: tier 3C; 8: tier 3B; 9: tier 3A.
cPatients’ rating: score of 1 to 5, where 1=poor and 5=excellent.
dValue of 0 or 1, where 0 is invalid and 1 is valid.
Summary of the characteristics of the collected data records (N=2437), n (%).
| Characteristic | Value | |
|
| ||
|
| Male | 820 (33.7) |
|
| Female | 1617 (66.4) |
|
| ||
|
| 20-30 | 786 (32.3) |
|
| 31-40 | 1274 (52.3) |
|
| 41-50 | 309 (12.7) |
|
| >55 | 68 (2.8) |
|
| ||
|
| Resident physician | 465 (19.1) |
|
| Attending physician | 891 (36.6) |
|
| Associate chief physician | 848 (34.8) |
|
| Chief physician | 200 (8.2) |
|
| Other | 30 (1.2) |
|
| ||
|
| 3A | 2368 (97.2) |
|
| Other | 69 (2.8) |
|
| ||
|
| 2 | 1680 (27.3) |
|
| 3 | 376 (35.1) |
|
| 4 | 205 (14.2) |
|
| >4 | 176 (4.5) |
Spearman correlation analysis of all variables (significance level=.05), r.
| Variable | Physician title | Hospital ranking level | Timely response rate | Satisfaction with service outcome | Satisfaction with service attitude | Thank-you letters | Patients’ rating | Trust propensity | Reference group | Advice |
| Physician title ( | 1 | 0.040 | -0.006 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.065 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Hospital ranking level ( | 0.040 | 1 | -0.036 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.093 | 0.012 | 0.063 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Timely response rate ( | –0.006 | –0.036 | 1 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.087 | 0.056 | 0.593 | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Satisfaction with service outcome ( | 0.012 | 0.018 | 0.089 | 1 | 1.000 | 0.548 | 0.387 | 0.048 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Satisfaction with service attitude ( | 0.012 | 0.018 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 1 | 0.548 | 0.387 | 0.163 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Thank-you letters ( | 0.005 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.548 | 0.548 | 1 | 0.968 | 0.029 | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Patients’ rating ( | 0.004 | 0.012 | 0.056 | 0.387 | 0.387 | 0.968 | 1 | 0.065 | 0.046 | 0.163 |
| Trust propensity ( | 0.065 | 0.063 | 0.593 | 0.048 | 0.163 | 0.029 | 0.065 | 1 | 0.034 | 1.000 |
| Reference group ( | .004 | 0.009 | 0.026 | 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.032 | 0.046 | 0.034 | 1 | 0.008 |
| Advice effectiveness ( | 0.016 | 0.020 | 0.023 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.014 | 0.163 | 1.000 | 0.008 | 1 |
Results of the regression analyses.
| Variable | Group A ( | Group B ( | All variables ( | |||
|
| Unstandardized coefficient | Significance level | Unstandardized coefficient | Significance level | Unstandardized coefficient | Significance level |
| Physician’s professional title | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.472 | 0.000 |
| Hospital’s ranking level | 0.018 | 0.000 | 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.220 | 0.000 |
| Number of thank-you letters | 0.096 | 0.000 | N/Aa | N/A | 0.001 | 0.363 |
| Timely response rate | 0.628 | 0.000 | 0.693 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 0.000 |
| Satisfaction with service outcome | N/A | N/A | -0.912 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.783 |
| Satisfaction with service attitude | –0.798 | 0.000 | N/A | N/A | –0.384 | 0.143 |
| Patients’ rating | 0.428 | 0.000 | N/A | N/A | 0.000 | 0.736 |
| Trust propensity | N/A | N/A | –0.013 | 0.000 | –0.043 | 0.482 |
| Reference group | 0.513 | 0.000 | 0.518 | 0.000 | –0.019 | 0.040 |
| Advice effectiveness | N/A | N/A | 0.002 | 0.000 | –0.028 | 0.744 |
aN/A: not applicable.