網路醫師評價之結構與內容特徵分析研究

Investigating the Structural and Textual Characteristics of Internet Physicians Review

10.6120/JoEMLS.2015.522/0001.RS.AM

邱銘心(Phoebe Ming-Hsin Chiu)；張家翎(Chia-Ling Chang)

網路醫師評價 ； 內容分析法 ； 就醫選擇資訊 ； 網路口碑 ； Internet physicians' review ； Content analysis ； Healthcare provider information ； E-Word-of-Mouth (eWoM)

教育資料與圖書館學

52卷2期（2015 / 04 / 01）

157 - 190+iii

繁體中文

網友在網路上所發表的網路醫師評價，是讓病患與家屬在面對醫師選擇時，取得更多主導權的一種消費者健康資訊類型。本研究搜集來自「良醫健康網」與「尋醫網」之網友對於醫師的文字評價，依據24個醫療科別隨機各抽樣50則評價，共計1,200則評價進行內容分析。分析主題就網路醫師評價的結構特徵（評價長度與分段方式）與內容特徵（評價屬性、評價時間點、評價策略、評價動機，與評價面向）兩個面向進行分析。研究結果希望可藉助病患對於醫師的主觀評價，了解網路口碑在醫療與健康資訊傳播的角色與功能以及在臨床醫學的應用面向，進一步支援病患與家屬在進行醫療決策選擇時的參考依據。另一方面，則得以建立有別於醫療機構觀點的醫療品質評價指標。

The Internet increases information transparency in several ways, and one way is to allow patients and caregivers access to needed information. It improves the autonomy of medical decision-making, and further creates better physician-patient communication. Internet physician review, as a type of popular medical and health information, improves patients and caregivers' understanding of doctor selection and supports proactive health decision-making. This study collects Internet physician reviews from two Taiwan-based health information websites-Good Doctor and Health, and DocHos. The analysis framework comprises both structural and textual aspects, each with distinct analytical focuses. The structural analysis includes length of reviews and paragraph structure. The textual analysis includes nature o f t he reviews, when in the clinical encounter process is reviewed, intent of the reviews, themes of the review, and review strategies. This study hopes to understand the role and function of the Internet physician reviews in the process of health information communication, as well as the applications on physicians' practice of clinical medicine and patients and caregivers' medical decision-making process. It may provide insight into the development of patient-centered rather than institution-centered evaluation criteria for healthcare quality.

1. Donnell, R. W. (2009). Rate MDs and other internet physician rating sites. Retrieved from http://doctorrw.blogspot.tw/2009/05/rate-mds-and-other-internet-physician.html
2. Given R. (2008). MD rating sites: Current state of the space and future prospects. Retrieved from http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/11/md-rating-sites.html
3. Bleich, S. N.,Özaltin, E.,Murray, C. J.(2009).How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to patient experience?.Bulletin of the World Health organization,87(4),271-278.
4. Blendon, R. J.,DesRoches, C. M.,Brodie, M.,Benson, J. M.,Rosen, A. B.,Schneider, E.,Steffenson, A. E.(2002).Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors.New England Journal of Medicine,347(24),1933-1940.
5. Dellarocas, C.,Narayan, R.(2006).A statistical measure of a population's propensity to engage in post-purchase online word-of-mouth.Statistical Science,21(2),277-285.
6. Dervin, B.(1999).on studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method.Information Processing and Management,35(6),727-750.
7. Dervin, B.,Nilan, M.(1986).Information needs and uses.Annual review of information science and technology,21,3-33.
8. Duan, W.,Gu, B.,Whinston, A. B.(2008).Do online reviews matter? - An empirical investigation of panel data.Decision Support Systems,45(4),1007-1016.
9. Finch, B. J.(1999).Internet discussions as a source for consumer product customer involvement and quality information: An exploratory study.Journal of operations Management,17(5),535-556.
10. Finch, B. J.,Luebbe, R. L.(1997).Using Internet conversations to improve product quality: An exploratory study.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,14(8),849-865.
11. Hay, M. C.,Strathmann, C.,Lieber, E.,Wick, K.,Giesser, B.(2008).Why patients go online: Multiple sclerosis, the internet, and physician-patient communication.The Neurologist,14(6),374-381.
12. Kaba, R.,Sooriakumaran, P.(2007).The evolution of the doctor-patient relationship.International Journal of Surgery,5(1),57-65.
13. Kadry, B.,Chu, L. F.,Kadry, B.,Gammas, D.,Macario, A.(2011).Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.Journal of Medical Internet Research,13(4),e95.
14. Lagu, T.,Hannon, N. S.,Rothberg, M. B.,Lindenauer, P. K.(2010).Patients' evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: An analysis of physician-rating websites.Journal of General Internal Medicine,25(9),942-946.
15. López, A.,Detz, A.,Ratanawongsa, N.,Sarkar, U.(2012).What patients say about their doctors online: A qualitative content analysis.Journal of General Internal Medicine,27(6),685-692.
16. Murray, E.,Lo, B.,Pollack, L.,Donelan, K.,Catania, J.,White, M.,Turner, R.(2003).The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: Patient perceptions.Archives of Internal Medicine,163(14),e17.
17. Nutbeam, D.(2008).The evolving concept of health literacy.Social Science & Medicine,67(12),2072-2078.
18. Oh, S.(2012).The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(3),543-557.
19. Pavlou, P. A.,Liang, H.,Xue, Y.(2007).Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective.MIS Quarterly,31(1),105-136.
20. Petrochuk, M. A.(2008).Leading the patient experience. Driving patient satisfaction and hospital selection.Healthcare Executive,23(2),47-48.
21. Pollach, I.(2008).Electronic word of mouth: A genre approach to consumer communities.International Journal of Web Based Communities,43(3),284-301.
22. Pollach, I.(2006).Electronic word of mouth: A genre analysis of product reviews on consumer opinion web sites.Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006,Los Alamitos, CA:
23. Reimann, S.,Strech, D.(2010).The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English-and German-language sites.BMC Health Services Research,10(1),332-345.
24. Rhodes, L.,Miles, G.,Pearson, A.(2006).Patient subjective experience and satisfaction during the perioperative period in the day surgery setting: A systematic review.International Journal of Nursing Practice,12(4),178-192.
25. Sciamanna, C. N.,Clark, M. A.,Diaz, J. A.,Newton, S.(2003).Filling the gaps in physician communication: The role of the Internet among primary care patients.International Journal of Medical Informatics,72(1/2/3),1-8.
26. Segal, J.(2009).The role of the Internet in doctor performance rating.Pain Physician,12(3),659-664.
27. Shi, L.(2012).The impact of primary care: A focused review.Scientifica,2012
28. Solomon, S.(2007).Doc's RateMDs battle turns ugly: Ontario FP spams ratings site, is publicly exposed by founder.National Review of Medicine,4(9)
29. Strech, D.(2011).Ethical principles for physician pating sites.Journal of Medical Internet Research,13(4),e113.
30. Vick, S.,Scott, A.(1998).Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship.Journal of Health Economics,17(5),587-605.
31. Wilson, T. D.(1997).Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective.Information Processing and Management: An International Journal,33(4),551-572.
32. Zhang, Y.(2013).Toward a layered model of context for health information searching: An analysis of consumer-generated questions.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(6),1158-1172.
33. Zhang, Y.(2010).Contextualizing consumer health information searching: An analysis of questions in a social Q&A community.Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium,New York, NY:
34. 李莉伶(2008)。台北市=Taipei，國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系=Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology。
35. 陳怡彣(2010)。台北市=Taipei，中國文化大學資訊傳播學系=Department of Information & Communications, Chinese Culture University。
36. 黃運圭(2004)。台北市=Taipei，國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系=Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology。
37. 潘麗娟(2006)。台北市=Taipei，國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所=Graduate Institute of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University。

1. 陳麗玉,陳怡靜(2022)。難孕婦女社群成員的知識分享與健康促進行為之關聯性研究。圖書資訊學研究，16(2)，71-107。