ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022
How do consumers respond when presented with novel doctor performance information? A multivariate regression analysis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How do consumers respond when presented with novel doctor performance information? A multivariate regression analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an array of attributes one may consider when selecting a doctor. Consumers must generally select providers in the absence of any standardized performance information about these attributes at the doctor level. Some attributes may be less salient to consumers until presented with novel performance data. Innate decision-making regret, style and skill may be important, given the complexity of processing and trading off on numerous attributes.
objectiveThere has been limited opportunity to study consumer behaviour in the presence of doctor-level quality information, as these data are not widely available. This study explores how consumers interact with doctor-level performance data, considering their decision-making regret, style and skill. Specifically, it examines how consumers rate 10 doctor attributes before and after exposure to doctor-level quality information.
methodsThe study utilizes data from the SelectMD 2.0 Provider Choice Experiment. Respondents (n = 1247) were presented with a mock website reporting quality information and asked to choose a doctor. Difference scores are calculated based on participants' ratings of 10 attributes before and after the experiment and a multivariate ordered probit regression is considered to study the association between the predictors and 10 response outcomes.
resultsConsumers change their valuation of doctor attributes following exposure to quality data. As expected, consumers upgrade their valuation of the safety and technical quality attributes, but this is specifically associated with a greater tendency to regret decisions. Instead, those with a more dependent decision-making style downgrade reputation, while those with better decision-making skill downgrade the bedside manner and safety attributes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumers/patients participated in the pilot testing of the website used for the experiment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.