ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Public preferences for online medical consultations in China: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences towards digital health technologies: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Developing Attributes and Levels for a Discrete Choice Experiment on Internet Hospital Service Preferences Among Chinese Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Mixed-Methods Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Resident Preferences for Telemedicine Services in China in the Digital Health Era: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
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
Background: Online medical consultation (OMC) is significant to promote the utilization and accessibility of healthcare resources and save time on consultation. However, the usage and public acceptance rates of it are still low in China. Meanwhile, few studies have focused on consumers' demand of OMC services. This study aims to identify attributes that influence users' preference for OMC services, quantify the value of these characteristics, and compare their relative importance. Methods: A nationwide discrete choice experiment was conducted to survey Chinese residents' preference choices for six attributes of OMC services. Conditional logit model and mixed logit model were used to analyze respondents' preference. Willingness to pay and heterogeneity were estimated by the mixed logit model. Results: A total of 856 respondents completed the study, and 668 questionnaires passed the consistency test. All of 6 attributes in the study were statistically significant except for "Doctor's professional title - Associate Senior." When choosing OMC services, respondents preferred to spend as little time and money as possible on a large online medical platform to consult a high-rated physician with a senior title from a well-known Grade-A tertiary hospital. Besides, respondents valued doctor's evaluation score most and were willing to pay ¥107 to obtain the services of higher-scored doctors. Conclusion: The study measured Chinese residents' preferences for six attributes of OMC and showed the heterogeneity of attributes among subgroups. Our findings suggested that OMC services providers should reduce the customers' waiting time, improve the quality of services and enhance professional skills to meet the customers' requirements. More research on preferences for OMC needs to be conducted in China, especially for key populations such as patients with chronic diseases.
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.