Effect of Negative Online Reviews and Physician Responses on Health Consumers’ Choice: Experimental Study

Author:

Han XiORCID,Lin YongxiORCID,Han WentingORCID,Liao KeORCID,Mei KefuORCID

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of online medical services. Although some researchers have investigated how numerical ratings affect consumer choice, limited studies have focused on the effect of negative reviews that most concern physicians. Objective This study aimed to investigate how negative review features, including proportion (low/high), claim type (evaluative/factual), and physician response (absence/presence), influence consumers’ physician evaluation process under conditions in which a physician’s overall rating is high. Methods Using a 2×2×2 between-subject decision-controlled experiment, this study examined participants’ judgment on physicians with different textual reviews. Collected data were analyzed using the t test and partial least squares–structural equation modeling. Results Negative reviews decreased consumers’ physician selection intention. The negative review proportion (β=–0.371, P<.001) and claim type (β=–0.343, P<.001) had a greater effect on consumers’ physician selection intention compared to the physician response (β=0.194, P<.001). A high negative review proportion, factual negative reviews, and the absence of a physician response significantly reduced consumers’ physician selection intention compared to their counterparts. Consumers’ locus attributions on the negative reviews affected their evaluation process. Physician attribution mediated the effects of review proportion (β=–0.150, P<.001), review claim type (β=–0.068, P=.01), and physician response (β=0.167, P<.001) on consumer choice. Reviewer attribution also mediated the effects of review proportion (β=–0.071, P<.001), review claim type (β=–0.025, P=.01), and physician response (β=0.096, P<.001) on consumer choice. The moderating effects of the physician response on the relationship between review proportion and physician attribution (β=–0.185, P<.001), review proportion and reviewer attribution (β=–0.110, P<.001), claim type and physician attribution (β=–0.123, P=.003), and claim type and reviewer attribution (β=–0.074, P=.04) were all significant. Conclusions Negative review features and the physician response significantly influence consumer choice through the causal attribution to physicians and reviewers. Physician attribution has a greater effect on consumers’ physician selection intention than reviewer attribution does. The presence of a physician response decreases the influence of negative reviews through direct and moderating effects. We propose some practical implications for physicians, health care providers, and online medical service platforms.

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3