4.7 Article

What Influences Physicians' Online Knowledge Sharing? A Stimulus-Response Perspective

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.808432

关键词

online knowledge sharing; stimulus-response; online health platforms; online expertise; psychology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the COVID-19 pandemic, online health platforms and physicians' online knowledge sharing played a crucial role in managing public health crises and preventing diseases. This study examines the factors that influence physicians' online knowledge sharing, specifically looking at the impact of patient visits and consultations, as well as the role of physicians' online expertise and knowledge sharing experience.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, online health platforms and physicians' online knowledge sharing played an important role in public health crisis management and disease prevention. What influences physicians' online knowledge sharing? From the psychological perspective of stimulus-response, this study aims to explore how patients' visit and patients' consultation influence physicians' online knowledge sharing considering the contingent roles of physicians' online expertise and online knowledge sharing experience. Based on 6-month panel data of 45,449 physician-month observations from an online health platform in China, the results indicate that both patients' visit and patients' consultation are positive related to physicians' online knowledge sharing. Online expertise weakens the positive effect of patients' consultation on physicians' online knowledge sharing. Online knowledge sharing experience weakens the positive relationship between visit of patient and physicians' online knowledge sharing, and enhances the positive relationship between patients' consultation and physicians' online knowledge sharing. This study contributes to the literatures about stimulus-response in psychology and knowledge sharing, and provides implications for practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据