The Relationship Between Static Characteristics of Physicians and Patient Consultation Volume in Internet Hospitals: Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet medical treatment, also known as telemedicine, represents a paradigm shift in health care delivery. This contactless model allows patients to seek medical advice remotely, often before they physically visit a doctor's clinic. Herein, physicians are in a relatively passive position, as patients browse and choose their health care providers. Although a wealth of experience is undoubtedly a draw for many patients, it remains unclear which specific facets of a doctor's credentials and accomplishments patients prioritize during their selection process. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim is to delve deeper into the correlation between physicians' static characteristics-such as their qualifications, experiences, and profiles on the internet-and the number of patient visits they receive. We seek to achieve this by analyzing comprehensive internet hospital data from public hospitals. Furthermore, we aim to offer insights into how doctors can present themselves more effectively on web-based platforms, thereby attracting more patients and improving overall patient satisfaction. METHODS: We retrospectively gathered web-based diagnosis and treatment data from the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University in 2023. These data underwent rigorous analysis, encompassing basic descriptive statistics, correlation analyses between key factors in doctors' internet-based introductions, and the number of patient consultation visits. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses to ascertain the independence of these vital factors. To further distill the essence from these data, we used nonnegative matrix factorization to identify crucial demographic characteristics that significantly impact patient choice. RESULTS: The statistical results suggested that there were significant differences in the distribution of consultation volume (P<.001), and the correlation analysis results suggested that there was a strong correlation between the two groups of data (ρ=0.93; P<.001). There was a correlation between the richness of a profile and popularity (P<.001). Patients were more interested in physicians with advanced titles, doctoral degrees, social activities, and scientific achievements (P<.001) as well as other institutional visit experiences (P=.003). More prosperous social activities, scientific achievements, experiences of other institutional visits, and awards were more common among people with advanced professional titles. Doctoral degrees remained attractive to patients when data were limited to senior physicians (P<.001). Patients trusted the medical staff with advanced titles, social activities, scientific achievements, and doctoral degrees (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences for choosing a health care provider differed significantly between free and paid consultations. Notably, patients tended to trust doctors with advanced professional titles more and were more likely to seek out those with doctoral qualifications over other professional ranks. Additionally, physicians who actively participated in social events and scientific endeavors often had an advantage in attracting new patients. Given these insights, doctors who invest in enhancing their personal and professional experiences within these domains are likely to see increased popularity and patient satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".