ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Encouraging physicians' continuous knowledge-sharing in online health communities: A motivational perspective.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The eHealth literacy and its sociodemographic determinants among adult inpatients in Web 3.0 context: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Healthcare workers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Knowledge sharing among medical teachers: the interplay between personality and the theory of planned behavior.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- More knowledge, more choices? How peer recognition of physicians' knowledge sharing affect patients' consultation in online health communities.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Configuration Path Study of Influencing Factors on Health Information-Sharing Behavior among Users of Online Health Communities: Based on SEM and fsQCA Methods.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online health communities (OHCs) as an essential means of patient education can significantly improve patients' health literacy and treatment outcomes. However, sustaining these social benefits brought by OHCs establishes the prerequisite that physicians can continuously share their knowledge on OHCs. Although previous studies have explored physicians' knowledge-sharing in OHCs, scholarly knowledge related to the means of motivating physicians to continue sharing their knowledge remains limited. Therefore, this study developed a research model based on motivation theory to explore the influence of practical benefits, psychological rewards, and perceived connectedness with OHCs on physicians' continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors and the contingent role of physicians' online seniority status. The research model and relevant hypotheses were examined using objective data from one of the leading OHCs in China. The empirical results reveal that both practical benefits and psychological rewards positively affect physicians' continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors. However, an unexpected finding is that perceived connectedness is negatively associated with physicians' continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors. In addition, physicians' online seniority status strengthens the relationship between practical benefits and continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors but weaken the role of psychological rewards and perceived connectedness on continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors. This study contributes to the understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying physicians' continuous knowledge-sharing behaviors in OHCs and provides significant practical implications for practitioners of OHCs.
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.