Introduction

Gideon, Lior

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_1

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A decision was made for Ipsos Mori (a research company) to implement the questionnaire face-to-face with a representative sample of the public across England. Face-to-face was the most appropriate mode because of the length of the questionnaire, it was within budget, and it is also least burdensome on the respondent [ 39 ]. Ipsos MORI was chosen because they are a reputable and well-experienced research company, who also conducts the national GP Patient Survey on behalf of NHS England (and the Department of Health).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith the advent and popularity of social media and consumer rating websites, as well as the emergence of the digitally engaged patient, there has been an increased interest in doctor rating websites or online patient feedback websites, both inside and outside academia. However, there is very little known about how the public across England views such rating websites as a mode to give patient experience feedback.ObjectiveThe aim of the overall study was to measure and understand public awareness, usage, and attitudes towards doctor rating websites as a mode to give experiential feedback about GPs in general practice in England. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to measure public awareness, current usage and future consideration of usage of online patient feedback websites, within the context of other feedback methods, This could allow the value of online patient feedback websites to be determined from the patients’ perspective.MethodsA mixed methods population questionnaire was designed, validated and implemented face-to-face using a cross-sectional design with a representative sample of the public (n=844) in England. The results of the questionnaire were analyzed using chi-square tests, binomial logistic regressions, and content analysis. The qualitative results will be reported elsewhere.ResultsPublic awareness of online patient feedback websites as a channel to leave experiential feedback about GPs was found to be low at 15.2% (128/844). However, usage and future consideration to use online patient feedback websites were found to be extremely low, with current patient usage at just 0.4% (3/844), and patient intention to use online patient feedback in the future at 17.8% (150/844). Furthermore, only 4.0-5.0% of those who would consider leaving feedback about a GP in the future selected doctor rating websites as their most preferred method; more than half of patients said they would consider leaving feedback about GPs using another method, but not using an online patient feedback website.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that online patient feedback websites may not be an effective channel for collecting feedback on patient experience in general practice. Feedback on online patient feedback websites is not likely to be representative of the patient experience in the near future, challenging the use of online patient feedback not just as a mode for collecting patient experience data, but for patient choice and monitoring too. We recommend the National Health Service channels its investment and resources towards providing more direct and private feedback methods in general practice (such as opportunities for face-to-face feedback, email-based feedback, and web-based private feedback forms), as these are currently much more likely to be used by the majority of patients in England.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An attempt to fill this void has been provided by Albaum and Smith (2012) who review theories of why respondents choose to participate in general population surveys. They describe four categories of theories centered on respondent motivation (a) social exchange that focuses on the relative balance between reward and cost; (b) cognitive dissonance, which posits that respondents participate to avoid negative feelings associated with nonresponse; (c) self-perception, which concerns whether the respondent considers himself or herself to be the type of individual who participates in a survey; and (d) commitment/ involvement, where respondents are considered likely to respond to the extent that they view the topic, sponsor, or survey researcher as relevant to themselves (see Gideon, 2012 for more details). An alternative, more encompassing theoretical perspective was given by Cialdini (1988); Groves and Couper (1988), and Groves, Cialdini, and Couper (1992) who specify six psychological concepts, or principles, which survey practitioners should take into account when designing a survey administration system: (1) reciprocation; (2) consistency; (3) social validation; (4) authority; (5) scarcity; and (6) liking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitators and Barriers to Survey Participation by Physicians

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surveys of health care providers are a well-established tool for obtaining information about the organization and delivery of care as well as about provider knowledge and attitudes. However, declining response rates to provider surveys are a widely acknowledged concern. Although a number of studies have identified specific methods for increasing response rates in health care provider-and particularly physician-surveys, few have addressed the more fundamental question of what motivates or deters providers from survey participation. We briefly review theoretical perspectives concerning why providers choose to participate in surveys, and what is known about facilitators and barriers to participation. We then describe several research designs (i.e., focus groups, key informant interviews, diary and office workflow studies, surveying the surveyors, and follow-back studies of respondents/nonrespondents) for obtaining empirical data on facilitators and barriers to survey participation, particularly by physicians and medical groups. Researchers must begin to build an evidence base for understanding provider decisions concerning survey participation.

show abstract

“…The interviews typically lasted for 45–60 min and took place over a time period of 7 months in 2018 and 2019. We follow the suggested methodology of Schultze and Avital (2011) for the design of interviews in information systems research, specifically employing the appreciative interview technique . We have combined retrospective questions about (1) experiences and observations regarding the experience of interview partners and (2) their company with conceptualizing questions regarding the structure and future of smart contracts (Gideon, 2012; Schultze and Avital 2011). Depending on the initial responses during the interview, we would follow up with more specific questions focusing on the research question at hand.…”

Section: Expert Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is code law? Current legal and technical adoption issues and remedies for blockchain-enabled smart contracts

Drummer

Neumann

2020

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blockchain technology has enabled so-called smart contracts between different parties on a decentralized network. These self-enforceable and self-executable computerized contracts could initiate a fundamental paradigm shift in the understanding and functioning of our legal practices. Opportunities for their application are increasingly understood, and numerous tests of feasibility have been completed. However, only very few use cases have yet been implemented at scale. This article—as the first of its kind—comprehensively analyzes the underlying challenges and locates a key reason for the slow adoption in the discrepancy between legal requirements and IT capabilities. Our work combines a wide range of academic sources and interviews with 30 domain experts from IT, the legal domain and private industry. First, we establish that smart contracts still fall within the boundaries of the general legal framework. We then systematically dissect current shortcomings of smart contracts on three distinct levels, namely, (1) how smart contracts are likely to cause conflicts with existing laws, (2) how smart contracts are intrinsically limited on an individual contract level and (3) how they are impeded by their current technical design. Across those levels, we dissect 20 distinct issues concerning the current implementation of smart contracts for which we derive potential remedies. We further outline implications for policy-makers as well as IT management, and examine how information systems research can play an important role in advancing smart contracts. Finally, we show how managerial and organizational issues might represent an ongoing challenge for the widespread adoption of smart contracts.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

Facilitators and Barriers to Survey Participation by Physicians

Is code law? Current legal and technical adoption issues and remedies for blockchain-enabled smart contracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About