| Literature DB >> 36248410 |
Song Cao1, Xiang Gao2, Shuzhen Niu3, Qian Wei4.
Abstract
Online healthcare platforms serve not just as a medical knowledge-sharing community but also bring about effective interactions between professional physicians and patients. However, it is unclear whether online technology adoption affects such interactions in the same way between traditional Chinese medicine and modern medical departments. By utilizing a large sample of online doctor-patient interaction information from 168,870 doctor-specific interactive webpages recorded in a famous Chinese online healthcare community, this paper studies the differences between 17,513 traditional medicine doctor homepages and 151,357 others from more than 100 different specialty areas. Our chosen platform is representative since it covers about 800,000 physicians working at over 10,000 hospitals across all major provincial regions in China. We document that online medical service users tend to accept and use online health care services. However, patients seeing Chinese medicine doctors exhibit the following unique characteristics. They still prefer choosing doctors according to third-party information and may be reluctant to pay for the current online service price level. This problem is hard to overcome by the platform in the short run. Patients need a long-term process to adapt to the upgraded medical environment gradually. Therefore, establishing a personalized doctor recommendation system has become the most urgent demand presently.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248410 PMCID: PMC9568306 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4619914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Variable definition and description.
| Variable | Definition |
|---|---|
| Page view | The number of visits to a doctor's home page at the good doctor online platform in our sample |
| Order | The number of patients that the doctor has helped after paid medical service orders have been placed online (cumulative counts since the doctor has started his or her online services) |
| OCR | Order conversion ratio, which is calculated as the ratio of the number of orders placed to the doctor to the view volume of that doctor's web page |
| Star | The degree of recommendation associated with the doctor rated by the good doctor website based on historical data (the rating is an integer from 0 to 5) |
| Hot | The degree of popularity assigned to the doctor by the Good Doctor website to a doctor based on historical data |
| Thank | The number of thank-you letters received by the doctor |
| Gift | The number of gifts received by the doctor |
| Article | The number of papers and articles published by the doctor |
| Review | Number of comments received by the doctor |
| Start year | The year that the doctor started online services on the platform |
| Desc_len | The length of the description of the doctor's field of expertise |
| Intro_len | The length of the introduction to the doctor's professional experience |
| City | Whether the hospital where the doctor works is located in the first-tier and second-tier cities (according to China business network, there are four first-tier cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen) in China and their 30 second-tier cities are selected out of 337 Chinese cities at the prefecture level and above. The selection criteria encompass five dimensions based on commercial store data, user behavior data, etc.) in the corresponding province |
| Academic title (AT) | AT represents a series of dummy variables constructed based on the academic titles associated with the doctor, which include professor, associate professor, lecturer, teaching assistant, and none |
| Clinic title (CT) | CT represents a series of dummy variables constructed based on the clinic titles associated with the doctor, including chief physician, deputy chief physician, resident physician, attending doctor, attending examiner, attending physician, resident physician, and laboratory physician |
| Department | Department represents a series of dummy variables constructed based on hospital departments in which the doctor can be classified, including TCM, pediatrics, internal medicine, stomatology, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, oncology, orthopedic surgery, and other departments |
Figure 1Proportion of doctors belonging to each hospital department.
Figure 2Proportion of doctors associated with each academic title in the TCM vs. MM department.
Figure 3Proportion of doctors associated with each clinic title in the TCM vs. MM department. Note. The other four clinic titles together account for only a small proportion, hence not listed in the figure.
Figure 4OHC user decision-making process.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Whole sample: 168870 | TCM sample: 17513 | MM sample: 151357 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. dev. | Min | Max | Mean | Std. dev. | Min | Max | Mean | Std. dev. | Min | Max | |
| Page view | 306001 | 1712036 | 671 | 167000000 | 411237.50 | 2786098 | 892.00 | 167000000 | 293824.50 | 1539700 | 671 | 138000000 |
| Order | 344.52 | 1334.86 | 0.00 | 73374.00 | 333.38 | 1472.95 | 0.00 | 59248.00 | 345.81 | 1317.95 | 0.00 | 73374.00 |
| OCR | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.52 |
| Star | 0.16 | 0.64 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.09 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.17 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 5.00 |
| Hot | 3.61 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 3.75 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 3.60 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 5.00 |
| Thank | 8.18 | 33.90 | 0.00 | 1632.00 | 5.04 | 20.20 | 0.00 | 559.00 | 8.55 | 35.12 | 0.00 | 1632.00 |
| Gift | 20.86 | 115.54 | 0.00 | 9362.00 | 13.54 | 84.76 | 0.00 | 3353.00 | 21.71 | 118.56 | 0.00 | 9362.00 |
| Article | 7.32 | 28.15 | 0.00 | 313.00 | 15.24 | 51.05 | 0.00 | 313.00 | 6.41 | 21.77 | 0.00 | 78.00 |
| Review | 19.46 | 71.16 | 0.00 | 3187.00 | 13.94 | 48.70 | 0.00 | 1332.00 | 20.10 | 73.29 | 0.00 | 3187.00 |
| Startyear | 2014.28 | 2.92 | 2008 | 2019 | 2013.77 | 3.01 | 2008 | 2018 | 2014.33 | 2.91 | 2008 | 2019 |
| Desc_len | 31.98 | 17.97 | 1.00 | 162.00 | 35.09 | 17.70 | 2.00 | 145.00 | 31.61 | 17.97 | 1.00 | 162.00 |
| Intro_len | 211.78 | 383.94 | 38.00 | 27056.00 | 214.32 | 294.04 | 38.00 | 9966.00 | 211.04 | 393.00 | 38.00 | 27056.00 |
| City | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Note. Other dummy variable series, including the academic title, clinic title, and department, are not shown to save space.
Correlation matrix of main variables.
| Page view | Order | OCR | Star | Hot | Thank | Gift | Article | Review | Start year | Intro_len | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order | 0.81 | ||||||||||
| OCR | 0.01 | 0.12 | |||||||||
| Star | 0.23 | 0.44 | 0.33 | ||||||||
| Hot | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.28 | 0.48 | |||||||
| Thank | 0.47 | 0.68 | 0.14 | 0.55 | 0.47 | ||||||
| Gift | 0.56 | 0.72 | 0.07 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.76 | |||||
| Article | 0.36 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 | ||||
| Review | 0.49 | 0.72 | 0.13 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.98 | 0.78 | 0.05 | |||
| Start year | −0.22 | −0.21 | 0.19 | −0.08 | −0.20 | −0.18 | −0.15 | −0.03 | −0.21 | ||
| Intro_len | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.21 | −0.26 | |
| Desc_len | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.18 | −0.22 | 0.24 |
Note. and represent significance at the 1% and 10% levels, respectively.
The effects on page views for doctors in the TCM and MM departments.
| Variables | (1) All | (2) All | (3) TCM | (4) MM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Page view | Page view | Page view | Page view | |
| Desc_len | 3.88 | 1.50 | 1.36 | 1.07 |
| (0.24) | (0.19) | (0.81) | (0.18) | |
| Star | 541.29 | −123.57 | −266.04 | −136.84 |
| (6.45) | (6.18) | (35.13) | (5.86) | |
| City | 104.45 | 17.75 | −42.01 | 29.77 |
| (8.20) | (6.56) | (27.35) | (6.39) | |
| Hot | −257.60 | −417.36 | −221.01 | |
| (14.15) | (58.82) | (13.81) | ||
| Thank-you | −12.04 | 23.51 | −11.37 | |
| (0.45) | (2.76) | (0.43) | ||
| Gift | 6.26 | 15.75 | 5.48 | |
| (0.04) | (0.27) | (0.04) | ||
| Article | 2.56 | 2.32 | 5.73 | |
| (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.06) | ||
| Review | 9.50 | −7.05 | 9.34 | |
| (0.23) | (1.15) | (0.22) | ||
| Start year | −62.64 | −66.14 | −59.05 | |
| (1.24) | (4.98) | (1.21) | ||
| Intro_len | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.10 | |
| (0.01) | (0.05) | (8.48) | ||
| Academic title dummies | Yes† | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Clinic title dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Department dummies | Yes† | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Constant | 252.94 | 127309.8 | 134057.7 | 119594.3 |
| (1164.83) | (2643.47) | (10156.98) | (2443.94) | |
| Observations | 168870 | 168870 | 17513 | 151357 |
| R-squared | 0.075 | 0.452 | 0.621 | 0.428 |
Note. Page view is measured in thousands of web page visits. Standard errors are in parentheses. and represent significance at the 1% and 10% levels, respectively. For all AT, CT, and department dummy variables included in the regression, we mark † only when more than half of the dummy coefficients turn out to be significant.
The effects on the volume of doctor service orders in the TCM and MM departments.
| Variables | (1) All | (2) TCM | (3) MM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Order | Order | Order | |
| Desc_len | 1.13 | 0.72 | 1.11 |
| (0.11) | (0.24) | (0.13) | |
| Star | 193.91 | 289.00 | 189.62 |
| (2.72) | (10.39) | (2.80) | |
| City | −39.14 | −23.63 | −39.52 |
| (2.73) | (7.91) | (2.90) | |
| Hot | −41.82 | 58.41 | −50.10 |
| (6.21) | (17.60) | (6.74) | |
| Thank-you | −15.01 | −15.42 | −15.43 |
| (0.20) | (0.80) | (0.24) | |
| Gift | 1.22 | 0.34 | 1.30 |
| (0.01) | (0.10) | (0.01) | |
| Article | −0.78 | −0.91 | −0.29 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Review | 11.96 | 11.07 | 12.17 |
| (0.11) | (0.32) | (0.14) | |
| Start year | 6.44 | 6.60 | 6.60 |
| (0.53) | (1.51) | (0.64) | |
| Intro_len | −0.01 | −0.09 | −0.03 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Page view | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Academic title dummies | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Clinic title dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Department dummies | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Constant | −12482.31 | −13365.71 | −13036.50 |
| (1137.22) | (2985.30) | (1150.92) | |
| Observations | 168870 | 17513 | 151357 |
| R-squared | 0.836 | 0.884 | 0.830 |
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. and represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively. For all AT, CT, and department dummy variables included in the regression, we mark † only when more than half of the dummy coefficients turn out to be significant.
Results of using alternative dependent variables and empirical specifications.
| (1) OLS all | (2) Probit all | (3) Probit TCM | (4) Probit MM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | OCR | OCR | OCR | OCR |
| Desc_len | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Star | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| City | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.03) | (0.01) | |
| Hot | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.50 |
| (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.07) | 0.03 | |
| Thank-you | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.19 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.01) | |
| Gift | −0.01 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.84 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.03) | (0.01) | |
| Article | −0.01 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Review | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | |
| Start year | 0.01 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.04 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Intro_len | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Academic title dummies | Yes† | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Clinic title dummies | Yes | Yes† | Yes | Yes |
| Department dummies | Yes† | Yes† | Yes | Yes† |
| Constant | −0.33 | 82.01 | 83.81 | 79.75 |
| (0.01) | (3.8) | (10.4) | (4.1) | |
| Observations | 168870 | 157459 | 16840 | 140619 |
| R-squared | 0.262 | 0.347 | 0.315 | 0.352 |
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. , , and represent significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. For all AT, CT, and department dummy variables included in the regression, we mark † only when more than half of the dummy coefficients turn out to be significant.