IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v36y2025i1p285-306.html

Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Lianlian (Dorothy) Jiang

    (Decision and Information Science, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004)

  • Jinghui (Jove) Hou

    (Decision and Information Science, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004)

  • Xiao Ma

    (Decision and Information Science, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004)

  • Paul A. Pavlou

    (Decision and Information Science, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004)

Abstract

The healthcare market faces severe information asymmetry; patients struggle to evaluate the quality of hospitals and make informed decisions about their healthcare. Review platforms (e.g., Yelp) have begun to display the clinical quality of hospitals (alongside consumer reviews) to inform patients about hospital selection. In 2017 and 2019, Yelp introduced a feature with clinical measures of maternity care for hospitals that deliver babies in select markets. We study how clinical quality measures displayed on Yelp—especially for those (clinically) high-quality hospitals—influence subsequent patients’ ratings of hospitals. Our difference-in-differences estimation shows that when clinical quality measures are displayed, high-quality hospitals are surprisingly punished with lower subsequent ratings on Yelp, especially hospitals with low staffing capacity. This novel finding is consequential for hospitals as patient dissatisfaction can jeopardize the federal funding that hospitals receive ( CMS.gov ). To tease out the underlying mechanism, we queried SafeGraph’s precise foot traffic data, and we observed a significant patient surge for hospitals that have high maternity care clinical scores displayed on Yelp. We used transfer deep learning to show that because of the patient surge, (only) hospitals with high maternity scores that were short staffed received significantly more negative patient reviews and more complaints about key hospital service areas, thus driving patient dissatisfaction and lower ratings. We contribute to theory and practice by elucidating the role of publicly displaying clinical quality measures in patient (dis-)satisfaction with hospitals.

Suggested Citation

  • Lianlian (Dorothy) Jiang & Jinghui (Jove) Hou & Xiao Ma & Paul A. Pavlou, 2025. "Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 285-306, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:285-306
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.0630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.0630
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2021.0630?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang Wang & Marco Shaojun Qin & Xueming Luo & Yu (Eric) Kou, 2022. "Frontiers: How Support for Black Lives Matter Impacts Consumer Responses on Social Media," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1029-1044, November.
    2. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2016. "Health Care Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2110-2144, August.
    3. Winand Emons, 1997. "Credence Goods and Fraudelent Experts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 107-119, Spring.
    4. Yash Babar & Ali Mahdavi Adeli & Gordon Burtch, 2023. "The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(12), pages 7335-7346, December.
    5. Brad N. Greenwood & Ritu Agarwal, 2016. "Matching Platforms and HIV Incidence: An Empirical Investigation of Race, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2281-2303, August.
    6. Gordon Burtch & Seth Carnahan & Brad N. Greenwood, 2018. "Can You Gig It? An Empirical Examination of the Gig Economy and Entrepreneurial Activity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5497-5520, December.
    7. Jinghui (Jove) Hou & Xiao Ma, 2022. "Space Norms for Constructing Quality Reviews on Online Consumer Review Sites," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1093-1112, September.
    8. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    9. Pei-Yu Chen & Yili Hong & Ying Liu, 2018. "The Value of Multidimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4629-4647, October.
    10. Michael Spence, 2002. "Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 434-459, June.
    11. Varkevisser, Marco & van der Geest, Stéphanie A. & Schut, Frederik T., 2012. "Do patients choose hospitals with high quality ratings? Empirical evidence from the market for angioplasty in the Netherlands," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 371-378.
    12. Susan F. Lu & Huaxia Rui, 2018. "Can We Trust Online Physician Ratings? Evidence from Cardiac Surgeons in Florida," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2557-2573, June.
    13. Dezhi Yin & Sabyasachi Mitra & Han Zhang, 2016. "Research Note—When Do Consumers Value Positive vs. Negative Reviews? An Empirical Investigation of Confirmation Bias in Online Word of Mouth," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 131-144, March.
    14. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    15. Xinxin Li & Lorin M. Hitt, 2008. "Self-Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 456-474, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hongfei Li & Jing Peng & Xinxin Li & Jan Stallaert, 2023. "When More Can Be Less: The Effect of Add-On Insurance on the Consumption of Professional Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 363-382, March.
    2. Sharique Hasan & Anuj Kumar, 2024. "Who Captures the Value from Organizational Ratings?: Evidence from Public Schools," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 248-266, September.
    3. Jürgen Neumann & Dominik Gutt & Dennis Kundisch, 2018. "The Traveling Reviewer Problem – Exploring the Relationship between Offline Locations and Online Rating Behavior," Working Papers Dissertations 44, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    4. Hongfei Li & Jing Peng & Gang Wang & Xue Bai, 2024. "The Impact of Process- vs. Outcome-Oriented Reviews on the Sales of Healthcare Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1909-1927, December.
    5. Kentaro Azuma & Nicolas M. Dahan & Jonathan Doh, 2024. "Shareholder reaction to corporate philanthropy after a natural disaster: an empirical exploration of the “signaling financial prospects” explanation," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1421-1449, September.
    6. Moradi, Masoud & Dass, Mayukh & Kumar, Piyush, 2023. "Differential effects of analytical versus emotional rhetorical style on review helpfulness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Xitong Li & Hongwei Zhu & Luo Zuo, 2021. "Reporting Technologies and Textual Readability: Evidence from the XBRL Mandate," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 1025-1042, September.
    8. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    9. Gorkem Turgut Ozer & Brad N. Greenwood & Anandasivam Gopal, 2024. "Noisebnb: An Empirical Analysis of Home-Sharing Platforms and Residential Noise Complaints," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1824-1847, December.
    10. Janina Seutter & Jürgen Neumann, 2024. "Reviewing the simple things – How ease of evaluation affects online rating behavior," Working Papers Dissertations 120, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    11. Yang Li & Junrui Zhang & Miao Feng & Haoran Si, 2026. "Dynamic interaction effects between online reviews and spoilers: a PVAR approach," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 297-317, February.
    12. Guo, Xue & Cheng, Aaron & Pavlou, Paul A., 2025. "Skill-biased technical change, again? Online gig platforms and local employment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 124538, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Qian Wang & Michael Chau & Chih-Hung Peng & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2022. "Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1451-1463, October.
    14. Hossin Md Altab & Mu Yinping & Hosain Md Sajjad & Adasa Nkrumah Kofi Frimpong & Michelle Frempomaa Frempong & Stephen Sarfo Adu-Yeboah, 2022. "Understanding Online Consumer Textual Reviews and Rating: Review Length With Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    15. Bensnes, Simon & Huitfeldt, Ingrid, 2021. "Rumor has it: How do patients respond to patient-generated physician ratings?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Brad Greenwood & Idris Adjerid & Corey M. Angst & Nathan L. Meikle, 2022. "How Unbecoming of You: Online Experiments Uncovering Gender Biases in Perceptions of Ridesharing Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 499-518, January.
    17. Hongpeng Wang & Rong Du & Jin Li & Weiguo Fan, 2020. "Subdivided or aggregated online review systems: Which is better for online takeaway vendors?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 915-944, December.
    18. Cheng Zhao & Chong Alex Wang, 2023. "A cross-site comparison of online review manipulation using Benford’s law," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 365-406, March.
    19. Jialu Liu & Siqi Pei & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang, 2025. "Indirect Value of Public Infrastructure Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(8), pages 6457-6474, August.
    20. Soroush Saghafian & Wallace J. Hopp, 2020. "Can Public Reporting Cure Healthcare? The Role of Quality Transparency in Improving Patient–Provider Alignment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 71-92, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:285-306. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.