What Makes a Helpful Online Review for Healthcare Services? An Empirical Analysis of Haodaifu Website

  • Ya Gao
  • Ling MaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


The online healthcare websites bring more healthcare resources to patients, reduce time cost, and break geographical restrictions. However, the information explosion brought by the healthcare website also increased the difficulty in information screening and trust establishment for risky healthcare service. The online review is an important resolution for information asymmetry. This paper explores the review significance of healthcare websites by examining the impact of review depth and valence on the review helpfulness, especially in the context of different risk level diseases. We employed a secondary data econometric analysis obtained as 44,938 pieces of reviews from We found that both review depth and valence have a significant impact on review helpfulness. And review depth has a more significant impact when review valence is low. But the disease risk moderates the impact, that is, review depth is more useful for low-risk diseases than high-risk diseases. Also, the disease risk moderates the impact of review valence. For low-risk diseases, neutral reviews have a more positive impact on the review helpfulness. For high-risk diseases, extreme reviews have a greater impact on the review helpfulness. These findings can help to understand users’ needs on healthcare websites and establish more effective ways to do communication.


Review depth Review valence Review helpfulness Healthcare service 


  1. 1.
    S.R. Mano, Social media and online health service: a health empowerment perspective to online health information. Comput. Hum. Behav. 39, 404–412 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Ghose, P. Ipeirotis, The Econo Mining project at NYU: studying the economic value of user-generated content on the internet. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 8, 241–246 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F.M. Bass, Comments on a new product growth for model consumer durables the bass model. Manag. Sci. 50(12_supplement), 1833–1840 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. North, L.D. Uthke, S.M. Tulledge-Scheitel, Integration of e-consultations into the outpatient care process at a tertiary healthcare centre. J. Telemed. Telecare 20(4), 221–229 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.G. Gao, B.N. Greenwood, J. McCullough, R.A. Agarwal, Digital soapbox? the information value of online physician ratingsm, in Conference on Information Systems and Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.M. Mudambi, D. Schuff, What makes a helpful online review? a study of Customer reviews on MIS Q. 34(1), 185–200 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Q. Ye, Y. Hao, Y. Li, Research on the influencing factors of online review helpfulness based on film critic data. J. Manag. Sci. 13(8), 78–96 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Duan, B. Gu, A.B. Whinston, Do online reviews matter?—an empirical investigation of panel data. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 1007–1016 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Chen, J. Xie, Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Manag. Sci. 54, 477–491 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.A. Chevalier, D. Mayzlin, The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. J. Mark. Res. 43, 345–354 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Forman, A. Ghose, B. Wiesenfeld, Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: the role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inf. Syst. Res. 19, 291–313 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Li, Y. Zhang, L. Ma, X. Liu, The impact of the internet on health consultation market concentration: an econometric analysis of secondary data. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(10), e276 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.J. Vriend, Rational behavior and economic theory. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 29(2): 263–285 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Ghose, P. Peirotis, Designing ranking systems for consumer reviews: the impact of review subjectivity on product sales and review quality, in Proceedings of the 16 Annual Workshop on Information Technology and Systems (2015), pp. 156–167Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Eisend, Two sided advertising: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Res. Mark. 23(2), 187–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Salehan, D.J. Kim, Predicting the performance of online consumer review: a sentiment mining approach to big data analytics. Decis. Support Syst. 81, 30–40 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Karimi, F. Wang, Online review helpfulness: impact of reviewer profile image. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 39–48 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W.-I. Lee, S.-Y. Cheng, Y.-T. Shin, effects among product attributes, involvement, word-of-mouth, and purchase intention in online shopping. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 22, 223–229 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessEast China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations