Background Physician rating websites (PRWs) have become increasingly important in the cross-section between health and digitalization. Social influence plays a crucial role in human behavior in many domains of life, as can be demonstrated by the increase in high-profile influential individuals such as social media influencers (SMIs). Particularly in the health-specific environment, the opinion of family and friends has a significant influence on health-related decisions. However, so far, there has been little discussion about the role of social influence as an antecedent of behavioral intention to use PRWs. Objective On the basis of theories of social psychology and technology acceptance and theories from the economic perspective, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. Methods We conducted 2 studies by applying a mixed methods approach including a total of 712 participants from the Austrian population. The impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs was investigated through linear regression and mediation and moderated mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro 4.0 in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp). Results The 2 studies show similar results. In study 1, an experiment, no direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be detected. However, an indirect effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs via credibility (b=0.572; P=.005) and performance expectancy (b=0.340; P<.001) could be confirmed. The results of study 2, a cross-sectional study, demonstrate that social influence seems to have a direct impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.410; P<.001). However, when calculating the proposed mediation model, it becomes clear that this impact may partly be explained through the 2 mediator variables—credibility (b=0.208; P<.001) and performance expectancy (b=0.312; P<.001). In contrast to the observed direct and indirect effect, neither demographic nor psychographic variables have a significant moderating impact on the influencing chain in study 2. Conclusions This study provides an indication that social influence has at least an indirect impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. It was observed that this impact is exerted through credibility and performance expectancy. According to the findings of both studies, social influence has the potential to boost the use of PRWs. As a result, these web-based networks might be a promising future interface between health care and digitalization, allowing health care practitioners to gain a beneficial external impact while also learning from feedback. Social influence nowadays is not just limited to friends and family but can also be exerted by SMIs in the domain of PRW use. Thus, from a marketing perspective, PRW providers could think of collaborating with SMIs, and our results could contribute to stimulating discussion in this vein.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.Springer Gabler © Der/die Herausgeber bzw. der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2022 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung des Verlags. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Bearbeitungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Die Wiedergabe von allgemein beschreibenden Bezeichnungen, Marken, Unternehmensnamen etc. in diesem Werk bedeutet nicht, dass diese frei durch jedermann benutzt werden dürfen. Die Berechtigung zur Benutzung unterliegt, auch ohne gesonderten Hinweis hierzu, den Regeln des Markenrechts. Die Rechte des jeweiligen Zeicheninhabers sind zu beachten. Der Verlag, die Autoren und die Herausgeber gehen davon aus, dass die Angaben und Informationen in diesem Werk zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung vollständig und korrekt sind. Weder der Verlag, noch die Autoren oder die Herausgeber übernehmen, ausdrücklich oder implizit, Gewähr für den Inhalt des Werkes, etwaige Fehler oder Äußerungen. Der Verlag bleibt im Hinblick auf geografische Zuordnungen und Gebietsbezeichnungen in veröffentlichten Karten und Institutionsadressen neutral.

No abstract

BACKGROUND The digital assessment of service experiences represents a decisive process step of a feedback culture in numerous economic areas so far. In view of this digitalization of service assessments, the importance of Physician Rating Websites (PRWs) has also increased steadily in recent years. Although these online portals are evidently increasing in popularity, the credibility of ratings and other available information has scarcely been investigated. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to review current literature by focusing on the credibility of information delivered on PRWs. This approach was chosen to address the research question to what extent patients’ subjective assessments on PRWs are credible with regard to the comparison to objective evaluation criteria. METHODS In order to implement the literature review, we referred to the PRISMA guidelines. The respective search results of the search engine Google Scholar were chosen as baseline sample. In general, all studies, which compared data from PRWs with other data collections and allowed statements regarding the credibility of information published on PRWs were included in the analysis. Overall, the chosen search strategy led to a database of 24,000 studies covering the area of PRWs. After the application of gross exclusion criteria as well as title and abstract screening, 60 publications were included in the further analysis. Following the application of specific exclusion criteria, we identified 18 studies that met the thematic and qualitative criteria. RESULTS The literature review yielded mixed results regarding the credibility of PRWs. While six publications supported the credibility of PRWs, four publications found almost no correlation between PRWs and alternative datasets. Most of the studies found both, arguments for and against the credibility of PRWs. Although the ratings and information on PRWs were not comparable with each selected dataset, most studies found a moderate to strong correlation between patient satisfaction judgements and information published on PRWs. CONCLUSIONS Information delivered on PRWs does not seem to be a good representation of objective quality of care and does not seem to be credible with regard to its relationship to professional medical evaluations. There is a significant relationship, however, to other methods of assessing subjective patient perceptions like alternative patient satisfaction measurement methods. Thus, PRWs can be interpreted as a useful tool to assess patient satisfaction and patient experience. Physicians are therefore invited to make the most of this easy tool to assess the patient base’s subjective evaluation of service encounters and use it as an e-WoM tool and for viral marketing purposes. Patients, on the other hand, should be aware that information delivered on PRWs is more or less subjective in nature but can be interpreted as similarly useful as other e-WoM tools.

No abstract