ArticleBMC psychology2025
Deciphering patient selection of physicians in online health communities: insights from a dual-path perspective.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOnline medical choice behaviour in online health communities represents a key step in converting online consultation services. Understanding its influencing mechanisms offers practical value for improving user experience and platform operations. Prior studies mainly examined single information elements and lacked a systematic analysis of multiple information-processing routes and their mechanisms.
methodsWe used data from 313 physicians in the psychiatry and psychology department of an online health community (Haodf.com) in China. Guided by the Elaboration Likelihood Model and trust theory, we built regression models incorporating the central route (content quality and interaction quality) and the peripheral route (reputation credibility, professional competence credibility, and service capability credibility). We tested the effects of these information factors on patients’ online trust and online medical choice behaviour, and further examined the moderating roles of user involvement and consultation price.
resultsContent quality, interaction quality in the central route, and reputation and service capability credibility in the peripheral route significantly enhanced patients’ online trust. Online trust, in turn, significantly positively affected online medical choice behaviour. Moreover, higher user involvement strengthened the impact of central route factors on online trust, while higher consultation price weakened the positive effect of online trust on online medical choice behaviour.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the differentiated roles of multiple information-processing routes in shaping trust and behavioural transformation in online health communities. The findings provide empirical evidence to support optimised interface design and differentiated service strategies for online consultation platforms.
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.