Exploring the Use of Twitter by Leading Medical Centers in the United States

Healthcare organizations such as hospitals and clinics increasingly use social media platforms such as Twitter to raise awareness in the community about health and wellness issues. In line with this trend, the current study seeks to understand how Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Mayo Clinic use their primary Twitter accounts to post information related to each of the following major health topics: brain, cancer, diabetes, diet, exercise, heart, mental health, and obesity. Nearly 6,000 tweets posted by those medical centers were collected and analyzed. The results showed that the three medical centers used diet and cancer topics more frequently than the other six topics in their tweets. Moreover, diabetes was consistently the least frequently used topic in the analyzed tweets. The results associated with the other five topics were mixed

Physician Ratings Published on Healthcare Organizations’ Websites: Are They Biased?

In today’s age of social media, individuals use physician-rating websites (PRWs) to find information about healthcare providers and make decisions on which providers to choose accordingly. In line with this trend, healthcare organizations such as clinics and hospitals offer their own physician-rating platforms and mechanisms. However, a major concern regarding this form of privately-administered rating mechanism is the potentially high level of bias that may make the ratings published on those websites inaccurate and unreliable. In this study, we examined this form of bias. We used two hospital websites and four independent PRWs including RateMDs, HealthGrades, Vitals, and Google Reviews to collect, compare, and analyze patient satisfaction scores associated with a total of 569 physicians working in two hospitals located in Utah. The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-tests, and box plots demonstrated that, as hypothesized, the ratings published on the hospitals’ websites had significantly higher mean values and narrower distributions than those published on the independent PRWs. Our findings offer important implications for research and practice

An Empirical Examination of Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites

Physician rating websites (PRWs) are social media platforms that enable patients to submit ratings and reviews of physicians. While numerous PRWs are available on the Internet and millions of physician reviews are posted on those websites, many people still do not use them when making clinical decisions. This study seeks to understand what factors impact intention to use PRWs. A sample of 109 students was employed. Each subject was randomly assigned to either RateMDs, Vitals, or Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s website. The subjects were asked to choose a primary care doctor based on the reviews posted on the assigned website and complete a survey accordingly. The regression analysis revealed that perceived credibility of reviewers and general use of online reviews influenced intention to use PRWs, whereas perceived integrity of website providers only moderated the relation between perceived credibility of reviewers and intention to use PRWs

Site Location Determination Using Geographic Information Systems: The Process and a Case Study

In this study, we developed a five-step process for GIS-enabled site location determination in different domains. We applied that process to a real case study to examine its feasibility. The case was about determination of a suitable location for a children-oriented store in Bannock County, Idaho. We used ArcGIS 10, went through the decision making process, considered several decision criteria, and determined the best location for that store. The process that we developed in this study can also be used in other contexts such as health care, banking, and tourism

Hospitals\u27 Adoption and Implementation of Online Physician Review Systems: A Descriptive Analysis

In line with the growing adoption of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and online reviews in different contexts including healthcare, hospitals have started offering physician review systems. After visiting a doctor, patients receive a satisfaction survey, rate their physician, and write comments about their visit. This information is then published on the hospital\u27s website so that future patients can learn about the quality of care provided by physicians and make informed decisions on which doctors to choose accordingly. Given that offering and administering physician review systems by hospitals is a relatively new phenomenon, very few studies have examined it. In the present study, we seek to understand the types and characteristics of the hospitals in the northeast United States that offer online physician reviews. We compiled a list of 1007 hospitals located in the nine states in that region including Connecticut (CT), Maine (ME), Massachusetts (MA), New Hampshire (NH), New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ), Pennsylvania (PA), Rhode Island (RI), and Vermont (VT). We then visited the hospitals\u27 websites and collected information on whether they provided online reviews of physicians, and if they did, what care quality criteria they included in those reviews. We found that 70 (6.95%) of the 1007 hospitals published patient reviews of physicians on their websites. None of the hospitals in CT, ME, NH, RI, and VT was among the 70 hospitals. In terms of hospital ownership, 9.09% of the 671 non-profit hospitals in that region provided online physician reviews, whereas that percentage for proprietary and government/state-owned hospitals was less than 2%. We also found that 10.44% of the general acute care hospitals posted reviews of physicians on their websites, whereas only 2.38%, 1.49%, and 0.83% of the long-term care, rehabilitation, and psychiatric centers, respectively, provided online physician reviews. Out of the 70 hospitals with online reviews, 67 hospitals used either the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey or an extended version of it developed and administered by a company named Press Ganey Associates. Each of the 67 hospitals used a selection of the standard questionnaire items and adjusted the wording of the items based on their needs and characteristics. Among the standard criteria suggested by CAHPS and Press Ganey, the following three criteria were used most often: 1) how well providers communicate with patients, 2) likelihood of recommending the physician, and 3) provider\u27s use of information to coordinate patient care. Also, the following two criteria, suggested by CAHPS and Press Ganey, were rarely or never included in the satisfaction surveys: 1) getting timely appointments, care, and information and 2) helpful, courteous, and respectful office staff. Our results imply that there is opportunity for other hospitals in the United States to take advantage of online physician review systems to evaluate and improve the quality of care they provide to their patients

Revisiting Request for Adminship (RfA) within Wikipedia: How Do User Contributions Instill Community Trust?

Research into successful Request for Adminship (RfA) within Wikipedia is primarily focused on the impact of the relationship between adminship candidates and voters on RfA success. Very few studies, however, have investigated how candidates’ contributions may predict their success in the RfA process. In this study, we examine the impact of content and social contributions as well as total contributions made by adminship candidates on the community\u27s overall decision as to whether to promote the candidate to administrator. We also assess the influence of clarity of contribution on RfA success. To do so, we collected data on 754 RfA cases and used logistic regression to test four hypotheses. Our results highlight the important role that user contribution behaviors and activity history have on the user’s success in the RfA process. The results also suggest that tenure and number of RfA attempts play a role in the RfA process. Our findings have implications for theory and practice

INVESTIGATING THE USE OF TWITTER BY THREE MAJOR U.S. MEDICAL CENTERS

Healthcare organizations such as hospitals and clinics are increasingly using social media platforms such as Twitter to raise awareness in the community about health and wellness issue. In line with this trend, we conducted this study to understand how Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Mayo Clinic used their official Twitter accounts to post information related to each of the following topics: brain, cancer, diabetes, diet, exercise, heart, mental health, and obesity. We collected and analyzed nearly 6,000 tweets posted by those medical centers and found that all of them used diet and cancer topics more frequently than the other six topics in their tweets. Moreover, diabetes was consistently the least frequently used topic in the tweets posted by those medical centers. The results associated with the other five topics were mixed

Toward a Typology of Health 2.0 Collaboration Platforms and Websites

During the past decade, the proliferation of social media has infiltrated various sectors of social and business communications. Of particular interest is the growth of health related websites and the healthcare sector’s adoption of social media. In this paper, we develop a typology of health 2.0 collaboration platforms and websites. According to the proposed typology, two major types of actors within health 2.0 websites are health professionals (P) and health consumers (C). Each type of user can serve as either support provider or support recipient. Thus, we define the main types of health 2.0 platforms and websites as professional-to-professional (P2P), professional-to-consumer (P2C), consumer-to-consumer (C2C), and consumer-to-professional (C2P). We describe each type and utilize the typology to investigate 16 popular health 2.0 websites and the collaboration platforms they provide. Our typology can be used as a basis for the future research on health social media

Communicating Personal Health Information in Virtual Health Communities: An Integration of Privacy Calculus Model and Affective Commitment

Health consumers such as patients and caregivers often join virtual health communities (VHCs) to seek and provide health-related information and emotional support. To do so, they converse with other individuals in platforms such as public discussion boards and blogs. During these online conversations, people may communicate their personal health information (PHI) to others. A potential driver for this form of revealing PHI is the immediate positive outcomes that it can provide for contributors and the community. PHI disclosure, however, can entail privacy risks and concerns for community members, which may ultimately hamper their participation in those communities. Moreover, one’s emotional attachment to a VHC (namely, affective commitment) may influence one’s PHI sharing behaviors in that community. Thus, to understand how various factors impact communicating PHI in public VHC discussions, we drew on the privacy calculus model and the notion of affective commitment, developed a theoretical model, and empirically tested the model. To do so, we administered a survey to individuals from three different populations including students, faculty, and staff at a large university and visitors to clinics. We performed a set of hierarchical moderated multiple regressions on the dataset. The results revealed that privacy concerns along with expected personal and community-related outcomes of communicating PHI affected willingness to communicate PHI in public VHC discussions. The results, however, refuted the hypothesized direct and moderating effects of affective commitment on willingness to share PHI in these virtual platforms. The findings of this study provide contributions to research and practice