Physician-rating platforms: How does your doctor feel?
Research output: Contributions to collected editions/works › Article in conference proceedings › Research › peer-review
Standard
AMCIS 2016 Proceedings. Atlanta: AIS eLibrary, 2016. 23 (Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS); Vol. 2016).
Research output: Contributions to collected editions/works › Article in conference proceedings › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Physician-rating platforms: How does your doctor feel?
AU - Abramova, Olga
AU - Veltri, Natasha
AU - Krasnova, Hanna
AU - Kiatprasert, Sirima
AU - Buxmann, Peter
N1 - Conference code: 22
PY - 2016/8/11
Y1 - 2016/8/11
N2 - Consumer review platforms have enjoyed success in retail, restaurant, hospitality and travel industries as a powerful quality tracking and information sharing tool. Consumer reviews of professional services are also popular, albeit different from reviews of an impersonal product or service. Public reviews of professional services inevitably link professional’s reputation to his or her identity as a private individual. This exploratory study focuses on healthcare professional services and physician-ranking platforms because the validity of these platforms and the applicability of the standard review system to medical industry has been frequently questioned. Analyzing survey responses from Swiss medical practitioners, this paper attempts to reconcile divergent interests of patients and physicians and to identify medical services evaluation criteria that should be incorporated into design of physician-rating platforms. While physicians accept evaluations of their friendliness, and office waiting time, general atmosphere, medical staff, location and cleanliness, they oppose consumer evaluation of their clinical competences.
AB - Consumer review platforms have enjoyed success in retail, restaurant, hospitality and travel industries as a powerful quality tracking and information sharing tool. Consumer reviews of professional services are also popular, albeit different from reviews of an impersonal product or service. Public reviews of professional services inevitably link professional’s reputation to his or her identity as a private individual. This exploratory study focuses on healthcare professional services and physician-ranking platforms because the validity of these platforms and the applicability of the standard review system to medical industry has been frequently questioned. Analyzing survey responses from Swiss medical practitioners, this paper attempts to reconcile divergent interests of patients and physicians and to identify medical services evaluation criteria that should be incorporated into design of physician-rating platforms. While physicians accept evaluations of their friendliness, and office waiting time, general atmosphere, medical staff, location and cleanliness, they oppose consumer evaluation of their clinical competences.
KW - Financial fraud
KW - Fraud detection
KW - Leading effect
KW - Social media
KW - Text mining
KW - Physician-rating platforms
KW - Physicians
KW - Business informatics
KW - Online review platforms
KW - Informatics
UR - http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/EndUser/
UR - http://dblp2.uni-trier.de/db/conf/amcis/amcis2016.html
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84987622051&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article in conference proceedings
T3 - Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS)
BT - AMCIS 2016 Proceedings
PB - AIS eLibrary
CY - Atlanta
T2 - Americas Conference on Information Systems - AMCIS 2016
Y2 - 11 August 2016 through 14 August 2016
ER -