4.7 Article

Online selection of a physician by patients: Empirical study from elaboration likelihood perspective

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 403-412

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.060

关键词

Disease type; Elaboration likelihood model; Online healthcare community; Service quality; Electronic word-of-mouth

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71271219, 71210003]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2017JJ2323]
  3. Central South University [2015CX010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the rapid development of Web 2.0 technologies, an increasing number of physicians are providing services through websites that enable patients to consult with them online. Patients can find a wealth of information about the healthcare community, but research has not explored how patients process this information, or how this processing might influence their decisions to consult a physician online. To fill this gap, we used the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Service Quality theory to investigate patients' selection decisions. We considered service quality as the central route, and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) as the peripheral cue, and explored their importance. We also examined the moderating effects of disease risk and disease knowledge on patients' consulting intention. We developed an empirical econometric model to evaluate our hypotheses. Using data from an online healthcare site in China, our results revealed that service quality and eWOM both had positive effects on patients' selection decisions. Disease knowledge increased the importance of service quality on patients' choices. Furthermore, disease risk and disease knowledge decreased the influence of eWOM on patients' choices. We conclude that our research into the impact of information processing on how patients select their physicians has strong theoretical and practical implications. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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