@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/14417，作者=“韩、希、李、贝、张、婷婷、曲家斌”，标题=“医师评价网站上医师评价实际行为与意向的相关因素:横断面研究”，期刊=“J医学网络研究”，年=“2020”，月=“6”，日=“4”，卷=“22”，数=“6”，页数=“e14417”，关键词=“网上医师评价;用户生成的内容;医生评级网站;行为意向;背景:尽管在线医生评分信息在中国健康消费者中很受欢迎，但有限的评论数量极大地阻碍了这一信息的有效使用。到目前为止，很少有人从用户的角度讨论影响在线医生评分的变量。目的:本研究旨在调查与中国城市地区生成在线医生评级信息的实际行为和意愿相关的因素。方法:采用网络横断面调查，记录1371名中国健康消费者的有效回复。通过试点访谈，我们分析了人口统计学、健康变量、认知变量和技术相关变量对在线医生评级信息生成的影响。采用二元多元logistic回归、多元线性回归、单因素方差分析、独立样本t检验等方法对健康消费者的评分行为和意愿进行分析。 The survey instrument was designed based on the existing literature and the pilot interview. Results: In this survey, 56.7{\%} (778/1371) of the responders used online physician rating information, and 20.9{\%} (287/1371) of the responders rated the physicians on the physician rating website at least once (posters). The actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors and was significantly associated with seeking web-based physician information (odds ratio [OR] 5.548, 95{\%} CI 3.072-10.017; P<.001), usage of web-based physician service (OR 2.771, 95{\%} CI 1.979-3.879; P<.001), health information-seeking ability (OR 1.138, 95{\%} CI 0.993-1.304; P=.04), serious disease development (OR 2.699, 95{\%} CI 1.889-3.856; P<.001), good medical experience (OR 2.149, 95{\%} CI 1.473-3.135; P<.001), altruism (OR 0.612, 95{\%} CI 0.483-0.774; P<.001), self-efficacy (OR 1.453, 95{\%} CI 1.182-1.787; P<.001), and trust in online physician rating information (OR 1.315, 95{\%} CI 1.089-1.586; P=.004). Some factors influencing the intentions of the posters and nonposters rating the physicians were different, and the rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking web-based physician information ($\beta$=.486; P=.007), using web-based medical service ($\beta$=.420; P=.002), ability to seek health information ($\beta$=.193; P=.002), rating habits ($\beta$=.105; P=.02), altruism ($\beta$=.414; P<.001), self-efficacy ($\beta$=.102; P=.06), trust ($\beta$=.351; P<.001), and perceived ease of use ($\beta$=.275; P<.001) served as significant predictors of the rating intention. For nonposters, ability to seek health information ($\beta$=.077; P=.003), chronic disease development ($\beta$=.092; P=.06), bad medical experience ($\beta$=.047; P=.02), rating habits ($\beta$=.085; P<.001), altruism ($\beta$=.411; P<.001), self-efficacy ($\beta$=.171; P<.001), trust ($\beta$=.252; P<.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians ($\beta$=.109; P<.001) were significantly associated with the rating intention. Conclusions: We showed that different factors affected the physician rating behavior and rating intention. Health-related variables influenced the physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were critical in the rating intentions. We have proposed some practical implications for physician rating websites and physicians to promote online physician rating information generation. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/14417", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2020/6/e14417/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/14417", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32496198" }