Investigating the effect of service feedback and physician popularity on physician demand in the virtual healthcare environment

Abstract

PurposeThis study examines how service feedback and physician popularity affect physician demand in the context of virtual healthcare environment. Based on the signaling theory, the critical factor of environment uncertainty (i.e. disease risk) and its impact on physician demand is also investigated. Further, the research on the endogeneity of online reviews in healthcare is also examined in the current study.Design/methodology/approachA secondary data econometric analysis using 3-wave data sets of 823 physicians obtained from two PRWs (Healthgrades and Vitals) was conducted. The analysis was run using the difference-in-difference method to consider physician and website-specific effects.FindingsThe study's findings indicate that physician popularity has a stronger positive effect on physician demand compared with service feedback. Improving popularity leads to a relative increase in the number of appointments, which in turn enhance physician demand. Further, the impact of physician popularity on physician demand is positively mitigated by the disease risk.Originality/valueThe authors' research contributes to a better understanding of the signaling transmission mechanism in the online healthcare environment. Further, the findings provide practical implications for key stakeholders into how an efficient feedback and popularity mechanism can be built to enhance physician service outcomes in order to maximize the financial efficiency of physicians.

General knowledge-sharing and patient engagement in online health communities: an inverted U-shaped relationship

“…In an environment characterized by information asymmetry, such as OHCs, patients may choose their ideal physicians by engaging with either the breadth or depth of knowledge shared by physicians with the aim of alleviating environmental uncertainty (Shah et al, 2022). However, in the case of knowledge contributors who have higher offline professional status, patients may prioritize the status of their target physicians among their selection criteria regardless of how many free health-related articles covering one single or multiple disease topic(s) these professionals may have published.…”

“…As is the case with the role of offline professional status, physicians with a higher level of online professional status demonstrate greater privilege in the form of online rewards and economic returns (Zhang et al , 2020). Additionally, patients treat physicians’ online status as an indicator of their reputation and eWOM when they are evaluating these physicians’ expertise and credibility (Liu et al , 2016; Shah et al , 2022).…”

Understanding the role of information transparency in improving patient experience under different uncertainties: a quasi-natural experiment

“…The popularity of a physician refers to the degree that a physician is known by the public and can be measured by the number of appointments (Burkle and Keegan, 2015;Shah et al, 2022). Marketing research literature suggests that customers are willing to endure longer waiting time if they perceive a potentially high quality of service (Lu et al, 2013).…”

“…The popularity of a physician refers to the degree that a physician is known by the public and can be measured by the number of appointments (Burkle and Keegan, 2015; Shah et al. , 2022).…”

Advanced Sentiment Analysis for Managing and Improving Patient Experience: Application for General Practitioner (GP) Classification in Northamptonshire

“…Patient feedback is a terminology used to describe feedback received from patients that are in various forms of experience, satisfaction, assessments, and viewpoints within the boundaries of quality, continuity, and accessibility. With the integration of the internet into users’ daily lives and the adoption of social media platforms, feedback has become more of a social activity [ 1 ]. Timely and unsolicited feedback with a focus on the true voice of users creates a dynamic feedback process [ 2 ].…”