IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2019i1p139-d301402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient–Physician Interaction and Trust in Online Health Community: The Role of Perceived Usefulness of Health Information and Services

Author

Listed:
  • Yuxin Peng

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Pingping Yin

    (Hubei Sanning Chemical Industry Company limited, Zhijiang 443200, China)

  • Zhaohua Deng

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Ruoxi Wang

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

Abstract

Background: In recent years, China has witnessed a surge in medical disputes, including many widely reported violent riots, attacks, and protests in hospitals. Asymmetric information between patient and physicians is one of the most critical enablers in this phenomenon, but the Web has become the primary resource for Chinese Internet applications to learn about health information and could potentially play a role in this pathway to patient–physician interaction and patient–physician trust. While considerable attention has been paid in some countries, there are few researches about China’s situation for this issue. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the influence of online health information and the online guidance of doctors in patient health information literacy on patient–physician interaction and patient–physician trust in China. Methods: A web-based survey was conducted to collect data from online applications with health problems. A structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data to test the hypotheses. A total of 446 participants from the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and Huazhong University of Science and Technology hospital participated in the study. Results: Our analysis shows that the usefulness of online health information and the online guidance of doctors both significantly influence the trust of the patient toward physicians and interaction with physicians. Furthermore, the patient–physician interaction also has a significant impact on the patient–physician trust. Conclusions: There are many studies on the influence of online health information on the doctor–patient relationship, whereas a little research has examined this relationship between health information online support from doctors and patient–physician interaction by quantitative empirical analysis. This study also explores the online guidance role of doctors and whether doctor–patient communication will affect the trust of doctors and patients. The practical implications of this study include an improved understanding of the function of online health information and potential impacts regarding the interaction with physicians and trust toward physicians that can be used to resolve conflicts between doctors and patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuxin Peng & Pingping Yin & Zhaohua Deng & Ruoxi Wang, 2019. "Patient–Physician Interaction and Trust in Online Health Community: The Role of Perceived Usefulness of Health Information and Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:139-:d:301402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ford, Sarah & Fallowfield, Lesley & Lewis, Shôn, 1996. "Doctor-patient interactions in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(11), pages 1511-1519, June.
    2. Stephanie Watts Sussman & Wendy Schneier Siegal, 2003. "Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 47-65, March.
    3. Sullivan, Yulia W. & Koh, Chang E., 2019. "Social media enablers and inhibitors: Understanding their relationships in a social networking site context," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 170-189.
    4. Letizia Lo Presti & Mario Testa & Vittoria Marino & Pierpaolo Singer, 2019. "Engagement in Healthcare Systems: Adopting Digital Tools for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Ting, Hiram & Thaichon, Park & Chuah, Francis & Tan, Sharon Rebecca, 2019. "Consumer behaviour and disposition decisions: The why and how of smartphone disposition," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 212-220.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jingfang Liu & Lu Gao, 2021. "Are Diverse Media Better than a Single Medium? The Relationship between Mixed Media and Perceived Effect from the Perspective of Online Psychological Counseling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Bo Yang & Chao Liu & Xusen Cheng & Xi Ma, 2022. "Understanding Users' Group Behavioral Decisions About Sharing Articles in Social Media: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 819-842, August.
    3. Un-Kon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of Confirmation of Nation Brand Image in International Tourism Advertisement on Travel Intention of Foreign Tourists: The Case of Korean ITA for Chinese Tourists," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    4. G. Rejikumar & Aswathy Asokan-Ajitha & Sofi Dinesh & Ajay Jose, 2022. "The role of cognitive complexity and risk aversion in online herd behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 585-621, June.
    5. Affifa Sardar & Amir Manzoor & Khurram Adeel Shaikh & Liaqat Ali, 2021. "An Empirical Examination of the Impact of eWom Information on Young Consumers’ Online Purchase Intention: Mediating Role of eWom Information Adoption," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    6. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    7. Justyna Berniak-Woźny & Małgorzata Rataj, 2023. "Towards Green and Sustainable Healthcare: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Green Leadership in the Healthcare Sector," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Pei-Chu, Hung, 2019. "Understanding What Drives Consumers to Use Gourmet Apps: Applying a Relationship Quality Perspective," GATR Journals jmmr210, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    9. Un-Kon Lee, 2017. "International Tourism Advertisements on Social Media: Impact of Argument Quality and Source," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Pham Minh & Dang Thao Yen & Ngo Thi Huong Quynh & Hoang Thi Hong Yen & Tran Thi Thanh Nga & Nguyen Van Quoc, 2021. "Assessment of influencer’s effects on customers’ online purchasing behavior in Vietnam," HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE - ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY, vol. 11(2), pages 81-96.
    11. Alla Mostepaniuk & Turgay Akalin & Mohammad Reza Parish, 2023. "Practices Pursuing the Sustainability of A Healthcare Organization: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. Sunyoung Hlee & Hanna Lee & Chulmo Koo, 2018. "Hospitality and Tourism Online Review Research: A Systematic Analysis and Heuristic-Systematic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-27, April.
    14. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    15. repec:jtr:journl:v:4:y:2012:i:1:p:12-37 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Wang, Hui-Chih & Doong, Her-Sen, 2010. "Argument form and spokesperson type: The recommendation strategy of virtual salespersons," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 493-501.
    17. Elvira Ismagilova & Emma L. Slade & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2020. "The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1226, October.
    18. Haris Krijestorac & Rajiv Garg & Prabhudev Konana, 2021. "Decisions Under the Illusion of Objectivity: Digital Embeddedness and B2B Purchasing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2232-2251, July.
    19. Tsai-Ling Liu & Tyrone T. Lin & Shu-Yen Hsu, 2022. "Continuance Usage Intention toward E-Payment during the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Financial Sustainable Development Perspective Using Perceived Usefulness and Electronic Word of Mouth as Mediators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-23, June.
    20. Stephanie Watts & Laurie Giddens, 2017. "Credibility assessment for sustainable consumption: A laboratory study," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1356608-135, January.
    21. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:139-:d:301402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.