Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Research on the doctors’ win in crowdsourcing competitions: perspectives on service content and competitive environment

Authors: Xiuxiu Zhou, Shanshan Guo, Hong Wu

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Medical crowdsourcing competitions can help patients get more efficient and comprehensive treatment advice than “one-to-one” service, and doctors should be encouraged to actively participate. In the crowdsourcing competitions, winning the crowdsourcing competition is the driving force for doctors to continue to participate in the service. Therefore, how to improve the winning probability needs to be revealed. From the service content and competitive environment perspectives, this study introduces doctor competence indicators to investigate the key influence factors of doctors’ wins on the online platform. The results show that the emotional interaction in doctors’ service content positively influences doctors’ wins. However, the influence of information interaction presents heterogeneity. Conclusive information helps doctors win, while suggestive information negatively affects them. For the competitive environment, the competitive environment negatively moderates the relationship between doctors’ service content and doctors’ wins. The results of this study provide important contributions to the research on crowdsourcing competitions and online healthcare services and guide the participants of the competition, including patients, doctors, and platforms.
Literature
1.
Li Y, Du N, Liu C, Xie Y, Fan W, Li Q et al. Reliable Medical Diagnosis from Crowdsourcing: Discover Trustworthy Answers from Non-Experts. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. Cambridge United Kingdom: ACM; 2017. p. 253–61.
2.
Yan L, LUCY, Tan Y. The Consensus Effect in Online Health-Care Communities. J Manage Inform Syst. 2017;34:11–39.
3.
Wang L, Yan L (Lucy), Zhou T, Guo X, Heim GR, editors. Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study. Information Systems Research. 2020;31:537–55.
4.
McComb S, Bond RR, CoDiagnose. Interactive software to harness collaborative diagnoses and to increase diagnostic accuracy amongst junior physicians. Technol Health Care. 2015;23:243–56.PubMed
5.
6.
Guo S, Guo X, Fang Y, Vogel D. How doctors Gain Social and economic returns in Online Health-Care Communities: a Professional Capital Perspective. J Manage Inform Syst. 2017;34:487–519.
7.
Zhang X, Guo F, Xu T, Li Y. What motivates physicians to share free health information on online health platforms? Inf Process Manag. 2020;57:102166.
8.
Yan L, Tan Y. Feeling blue? Go online: an empirical study of Social Support among Patients. Inform Syst Res. 2014;25:690–709.
9.
Wu H, Deng Z, Wang B, Wang H. How online health community participation affects physicians’ performance in hospitals: empirical evidence from China. Inf Manag. 2021;58:103443.
10.
Jiang S, Liu X, Chi X. Effect of writing style on social support in online health communities: a theoretical linguistic analysis framework. Inf Manage. 2022;59:103683.
11.
12.
Mein Goh J, Gao G (Gordon), Agarwal R, editors. The creation of social value: Can an online health community reduce rural–urban health disparities? MIS Quarterly. 2016;40:247–63.
13.
Swan M. Health 2050: the realization of Personalized Medicine through Crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory Biocitizen. J Pers Med. 2012;2:93–118.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Brabham DC, Ribisl KM, Kirchner TR, Bernhardt JM. Crowdsourcing applications for Public Health. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:179–87.PubMed
15.
Conrad EJ, Becker M, Powell B, Hall KC. Improving Health Promotion through the integration of Technology, Crowdsourcing, and Social Media. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21:228–37.PubMed
16.
Wang X, Mudie L, Brady CJ. Crowdsourcing: an overview and applications to ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27:256–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Khare R, Good BM, Leaman R, Su AI, Lu Z. Crowdsourcing in biomedicine: challenges and opportunities. Brief Bioinform. 2016;17:23–32.PubMed
18.
Afshinnekoo E, Ahsanuddin S, Mason CE. Globalizing and crowdsourcing biomedical research. Br Med Bull. 2016;120:27–33.PubMed
19.
Chia-An Tsai J, Kang T-C. Reciprocal intention in knowledge seeking: examining social exchange theory in an online professional community. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;48:161–74.
20.
Milgrom PR, Weber RJ. A theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding. Econometrica. 1982;50:1089–122.
21.
Huang Y, Vir Singh P, Srinivasan K. Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas under Consumer Learning. Manage Sci. 2014;60:2138–59.
22.
Brabham DC. Crowdsourcing as a model for Problem solving: an introduction and cases. Convergence. 2008;14:75–90.
23.
Majchrzak A, Malhotra A. Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2013;22:257–68.
24.
Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR. Incentives and problem uncertainty in Innovation Contests: an empirical analysis. Manage Sci. 2011;57:843–63.
25.
Afuah A, Tucci C, Crowdsourcing As A. Solution to distant search. Acad Manage Rev. 2012;37:355–75.
26.
27.
Ebner W, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H. Community engineering for innovations: the ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Manage. 2009;39:342–56.
28.
Bullinger AC, Neyer A-K, Rass M, Moeslein KM. Community-based Innovation Contests: where Competition meets Cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2010;19:290–303.
29.
Archak N. Money, glory and cheap talk: analyzing strategic behavior of contestants in simultaneous crowdsourcing contests on TopCoder.com. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. Raleigh North Carolina USA: ACM; 2010. p. 21–30.
30.
Brabham DC. Moving the crowd at Threadless. Inform Communication Soc. 2010;13:1122–45.
31.
Yang Y, Banker C. Impact of Past Performance and Strategic Bidding on Winner Determination of Open Innovation Contest. 2010.
32.
Yang Y, Chen P, Pavlou P. Open innovation: strategic design of online contests. In: Open Innovation. 2009. p. 1–16.
33.
Yang J, Adamic LA, Ackerman MS. Crowdsourcing and knowledge sharing: strategic user behavior on taskcn. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2008. p. 246–55.
34.
Chen L, Baird A, Straub D. A linguistic signaling model of social support exchange in online health communities. Decis Support Syst. 2020;130:113233.
35.
Feldman J, Lynch J. Self-generated validity and other Effects of Measurement on Belief, attitude, intention, and Behavior. J Appl Psychol. 1988;73:421–35.
36.
Xiao N, Sharman R, Rao HR, Upadhyaya S. Factors influencing online health information search: an empirical analysis of a national cancer-related survey. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57:417–27.
37.
Terry C, Cain J. The emerging issue of Digital Empathy. AJPE. 2016;80.
38.
Ouyang P, Wang J-J, Jasmine Chang A-C. Patients need emotional support: managing physician disclosure information to attract more patients. Int J Med Informatics. 2022;158:104674.
39.
Friedman B, Khan PH, Howe DC. Trust online. Commun ACM. 2000;43:34–40.
40.
Wilkinson S, Kitzinger C. Thinking differently about thinking positive: a discursive approach to cancer patients’ talk. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:797–811.PubMed
41.
Chau C. Professional Capital: An Informational Approach to nursing. Knowledge Management. WORLD SCIENTIFIC; 2005. 671–3.
42.
Noordegraaf M, Schinkel W. Professional capital contested: a bourdieusian analysis of conflicts between professionals and managers. Comp Sociol. 2011;10:97–125.
43.
Molm LD. Structure, Action, and outcomes: the Dynamics of Power in Social Exchange. Am Sociol Rev. 1990;55:427–47.
44.
Beddoe L. Building Professional Capital: New Zealand Social Workers and Continuing Education. Deakin University; 2010.
45.
Liu S, Zhang M, Gao B, Jiang G. Physician voice characteristics and patient satisfaction in online health consultation. Inf Manag. 2020;57:103233.
46.
Huang Z, Duan C, Yang Y, Khanal R. Online selection of a physician by patients: the impression formation perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022;22:193.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Piezunka H, Dahlander L. Distant search, narrow attention: how crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing. AMJ. 2015;58:856–80.
48.
Acar OA. Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation. Res Policy. 2019;48:103716.
49.
Lysyakov M, Viswanathan S. Recombinant Innovations: What Differentiates Experienced Designers in Open Crowdsourcing Contests? Academy of Management Proceedings. 2022;2022.
50.
Shao B, Shi L, Xu B, Liu L. Factors affecting participation of solvers in crowdsourcing: an empirical study from China. Electron Markets. 2012;22:73–82.
51.
Connelly BL, Certo S, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR. Signaling theory: a review and assessment. J Manag. 2011;37:39–67.
52.
Fang J, Wen L, Ren H, Wen C. The effect of technical and functional quality on online physician selection: moderation effect of competition intensity. Inf Process Manag. 2022;59:102969.
53.
Li J, Tang J, Yen DC, Liu X. Disease risk and its moderating effect on the e-consultation market offline and online signals. Inform Technol People. 2019;32:1065–84.
54.
Yang H, Du HS, Shang W. Understanding the influence of professional status and service feedback on patients’ doctor choice in online healthcare markets. Internet Res. 2020;31:1236–61.
55.
Huang Z, Duan C, Yang Y, Khanal R. Online selection of a physician by patients: the impression formation perspective. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2022;22:193.
56.
Cao X, Liu Y, Zhu Z, Hu J, Chen X. Online selection of a physician by patients: empirical study from elaboration likelihood perspective. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;73:403–12.
57.
Sun Y, Feng Y, Shen X-L, Guo X. Fear appeal, coping appeal and mobile health technology persuasion: a two-stage scenario-based survey of the elderly. Inform Technol People. 2022;36:362–86.
58.
Chen L, Baird A, Straub D. Fostering Participant Health Knowledge and Attitudes: an Econometric Study of a chronic disease-focused Online Health Community. J Manage Inform Syst. 2019;36:194–229.
Metadata
Title
Research on the doctors’ win in crowdsourcing competitions: perspectives on service content and competitive environment
Authors
Xiuxiu Zhou
Shanshan Guo
Hong Wu
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02309-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Machine-learning predictions for acute kidney injuries after coronary artery bypass grafting: a real-life muticenter retrospective cohort study

Research

Liver function test indices-based prediction model for post-stroke depression: a multicenter, retrospective study

Research

MRI-based brain tumor detection using convolutional deep learning methods and chosen machine learning techniques

Research

A nomogram for predicting sepsis-associated delirium: a retrospective study in MIMIC III

Research

Machine learning-driven clinical decision support system for concept-based searching: a field trial in a Norwegian hospital

Research

On Scene Injury Severity Prediction (OSISP) model for trauma developed using the Swedish Trauma Registry