Observational studyBMC primary care2024
Relationship between evaluation factors and star ratings for Japanese community healthcare institutions in electronic word-of-mouth reviews: an observational study.
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternet reviews have become increasingly crucial for both healthcare providers and patients. Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) reviews on internet sites often comprise textual content with numerical ratings. In this study, we aimed to identify the evaluation factors of community healthcare institutions regarding eWOM reviews and the impact of each evaluation factor on the institution's ratings.
methodsAn observational study was conducted to qualitatively and quantitatively analyse eWOM data posted on Google for randomly selected healthcare institutions in Hirosaki, Japan from September to October 2022. For qualitative data, the authors repeatedly read the eWOM text, coded it, and categorised related sections. For quantitative analysis, a multivariate analysis using a linear regression model was conducted with the categorised factors from the qualitative analysis as explanatory variables and eWOM ratings as response variables.
resultsTwenty medical institutions (two hospitals and 18 clinics) were randomly extracted from the registry. A total of 147 eWOM texts from each institution were analysed, and coding was performed for 474 segments in the texts. In the qualitative analysis, the evaluated factors in eWOM texts for medical institutions were categorised as communication (evaluation factor for communication with healthcare providers), clinical practice (evaluation factor for the clinical practice of healthcare providers), and medical institution (evaluation factor for the characteristics of medical institutions). According to the multiple regression analysis, the partial regression coefficients for the explanatory variables of positive communication, clinical practice, and medical institution evaluations were 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.39), 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.04), and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 1.15), respectively, with the number of ratings as the response variable. Partial regression coefficients for the explanatory variables of negative communication, clinical practice, and medical institution evaluations were - 1.52 (95% confidence interval - 1.88 to -1.16), -0.90 (95% confidence interval - 1.28 to -0.52), and - 0.24 (95% confidence interval - 0.60 to 0.12), respectively.
conclusionWe quantitatively and qualitatively analysed the eWOM reviews and ratings of healthcare institutions posted on Google. Three evaluation factors were identified: communication, clinical practice, and medical institution. Our study revealed that communication significantly impacts ratings.
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.