Patient 2.0-Usage of Physician-Rating Websites and the Role of Sociodemographic, Psychographic Variables and Health Status
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
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 the impact of sociodemographic, psychographic variables and health status on use or disuse of physician-rating websites.
Methods: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. The sample was drawn from an e-panel maintained by GfK HealthCare.It was based on a randomly generated set of users, who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the previous three months prior to the beginning of the survey. Incentives were offered for survey completion. In our study, we analysed the patients’ knowledge and use of physician online ratings. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic, psychographic variables and health status on the use or disuse as well as the judgement of PRWs and behaviour intentions concerning PRWs. Furthermore, we were interested in judging the proneness of users and nonusers of PRW to use an app concerning physician online ratings and even pay for that app. Patients were asked to rate the following on a 7-point scale: (1) the patients’ knowledge of PRWs, (2) the use or disuse of PRWs, (3) the judgement of PRWs and behaviour intentions concerning PRWs, (4) the patients’ attitude towards a physician online rating app. Data were analysed by using t-tests and chi-square tests calculated with SPSS (version 20).
Results: The current study found that users and nonusers of PRWs differ according to several sociodemographic and psychographic variables, health status, judgement and future intentions according to PRWs. In general, especially younger people aged betweeen 18 and 44 are more prone to use PRWs than older ones aged between 45 and 70 (chi-square test=3.198, p=.043). Also women use them more than men (chi-square test=9.383, p=.001), higher educated people (chi-square test=9.704, p=.001) and people with chronic diseases (chi-square test=5.633, p=.011). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily Internet use and in using the Internet for health related information. Significant differences were found between users and nonusers in their feelings about the Internet and Web 2.0 in general (t-value=3.07, p=.002) and their digital literacy (t-value=4.30, p=.000). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t-value=11.61, p=.000) and users trust information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t-value=11.48, p=.000). Users are also more prone to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t-value=7.63, p=.000) as well as to use a PRW in the future (t-value =12.97, p=.000). Additionally, users have a better attitude towards physician online rating apps than nonusers (t-value=4.60, p=.000), are more willing to use this app (t-value=4.72, p=.000), are more likely to pay for this app (t-value=3.27, p=.001) and to recommend it (t-value=3.94, p=.000).
Conclusions: Today, more people are looking at PRWs than a few years ago, but it will take more time until PRWs manage to attain significant attention across “average“ patients. Understanding the profiles of users and nonusers may foster an increase in the frequency of use of PRWs in the future. To attach the importance of PRWs the communication concepts of the websites should match the customers’ requirements.
Objective: We focused on the impact of sociodemographic, psychographic variables and health status on use or disuse of physician-rating websites.
Methods: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. The sample was drawn from an e-panel maintained by GfK HealthCare.It was based on a randomly generated set of users, who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the previous three months prior to the beginning of the survey. Incentives were offered for survey completion. In our study, we analysed the patients’ knowledge and use of physician online ratings. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic, psychographic variables and health status on the use or disuse as well as the judgement of PRWs and behaviour intentions concerning PRWs. Furthermore, we were interested in judging the proneness of users and nonusers of PRW to use an app concerning physician online ratings and even pay for that app. Patients were asked to rate the following on a 7-point scale: (1) the patients’ knowledge of PRWs, (2) the use or disuse of PRWs, (3) the judgement of PRWs and behaviour intentions concerning PRWs, (4) the patients’ attitude towards a physician online rating app. Data were analysed by using t-tests and chi-square tests calculated with SPSS (version 20).
Results: The current study found that users and nonusers of PRWs differ according to several sociodemographic and psychographic variables, health status, judgement and future intentions according to PRWs. In general, especially younger people aged betweeen 18 and 44 are more prone to use PRWs than older ones aged between 45 and 70 (chi-square test=3.198, p=.043). Also women use them more than men (chi-square test=9.383, p=.001), higher educated people (chi-square test=9.704, p=.001) and people with chronic diseases (chi-square test=5.633, p=.011). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily Internet use and in using the Internet for health related information. Significant differences were found between users and nonusers in their feelings about the Internet and Web 2.0 in general (t-value=3.07, p=.002) and their digital literacy (t-value=4.30, p=.000). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t-value=11.61, p=.000) and users trust information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t-value=11.48, p=.000). Users are also more prone to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t-value=7.63, p=.000) as well as to use a PRW in the future (t-value =12.97, p=.000). Additionally, users have a better attitude towards physician online rating apps than nonusers (t-value=4.60, p=.000), are more willing to use this app (t-value=4.72, p=.000), are more likely to pay for this app (t-value=3.27, p=.001) and to recommend it (t-value=3.94, p=.000).
Conclusions: Today, more people are looking at PRWs than a few years ago, but it will take more time until PRWs manage to attain significant attention across “average“ patients. Understanding the profiles of users and nonusers may foster an increase in the frequency of use of PRWs in the future. To attach the importance of PRWs the communication concepts of the websites should match the customers’ requirements.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.