I don’t like it but I use it: how online physician reviews affect readers’ trust

Abstract

Purpose Recent research suggests that more than two-thirds of people use online reviews to find a new primary care physician (PCP). However, it is unclear what role review content plays when a patient uses online reviews to decide about a new PCP. This paper aims to understand how a review's content, related to competence (communication and technical skills) and benevolence (fidelity and fairness), impacts patients’ trusting intentions to select a PCP. The authors build the model around information diagnosticity, construal level theory and valence asymmetries and use review helpfulness as a mediator and review valence as a moderator in this process. Design/methodology/approach The authors use two experimental studies to test our hypotheses and collect data through prolific. Findings The authors find that people have a harder time making inferences about the technical and communication skills of a PCP. Reviews about fidelity are perceived as more helpful and influential in building trust than reviews about fairness. Overall, reviews about the communication skills of a PCP have stronger effects on trusting intentions than other types of reviews. The authors also find that positive reviews are perceived as more helpful for the readers than negative reviews, but negative reviews have a stronger impact on patients' trust intentions than positive ones. Originality/value The authors identify how online reviews about a PCP’s competency and benevolence affect patients’ trusting intentions to choose the PCP. The implication of findings of this study for primary medical practice and physician review websites is discussed.