Factors Associated With the Actual Behavior and Intention of Rating Physicians on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)
Authors: Han Xi , Li Bei , Zhang Tingting , Qu Jiabin 
Published: April 2019

BACKGROUND

Although online physician rating information is popular among Chinese health consumers, the limited number of reviews greatly hampers the effective usage of this information. To date, little has been discussed on the variables that influence online physician rating from the users’ perspective.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the factors associated with the actual behavior and intention of generating online physician rating information in urban China.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted, and the valid responses of 1371 Chinese health consumers were recorded. Using a pilot interview, we analyzed the effects of demographics, health variables, cognitive variables, and technology-related variables on online physician rating information generation. Binary multivariate logistic regression, multiple linear regression, one-way analysis of variance analyses, and independent samples <i>t</i> test were performed to analyze the rating behavior and the intentions of the health consumers. The survey instrument was designed based on the existing literature and the pilot interview.

RESULTS

In this survey, 56.7% (778/1371) of the responders used online physician rating information, and 20.9% (287/1371) of the responders rated the physicians on the physician rating website at least once (posters). The actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors and was significantly associated with seeking web-based physician information (odds ratio [OR] 5.548, 95% CI 3.072-10.017; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), usage of web-based physician service (OR 2.771, 95% CI 1.979-3.879; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), health information-seeking ability (OR 1.138, 95% CI 0.993-1.304; <i>P</i>=.04), serious disease development (OR 2.699, 95% CI 1.889-3.856; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), good medical experience (OR 2.149, 95% CI 1.473-3.135; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), altruism (OR 0.612, 95% CI 0.483-0.774; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), self-efficacy (OR 1.453, 95% CI 1.182-1.787; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and trust in online physician rating information (OR 1.315, 95% CI 1.089-1.586; <i>P</i>=.004). Some factors influencing the intentions of the posters and nonposters rating the physicians were different, and the rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking web-based physician information (β=.486; <i>P</i>=.007), using web-based medical service (β=.420; <i>P</i>=.002), ability to seek health information (β=.193; <i>P</i>=.002), rating habits (β=.105; <i>P</i>=.02), altruism (β=.414; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), self-efficacy (β=.102; <i>P</i>=.06), trust (β=.351; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and perceived ease of use (β=.275; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) served as significant predictors of the rating intention. For nonposters, ability to seek health information (β=.077; <i>P</i>=.003), chronic disease development (β=.092; <i>P</i>=.06), bad medical experience (β=.047; <i>P</i>=.02), rating habits (β=.085; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), altruism (β=.411; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), self-efficacy (β=.171; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), trust (β=.252; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians (β=.109; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) were significantly associated with the rating intention.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that different factors affected the physician rating behavior and rating intention. Health-related variables influenced the physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were critical in the rating intentions. We have proposed some practical implications for physician rating websites and physicians to promote online physician rating information generation.