Advertisement

Why Does Interactional Unfairness Matter for Patient-Doctor Relationship Quality in Online Health Consultation? The Contingencies of Professional Seniority and Disease Severity

  • Xiaofei Zhang
  • Xitong Guo
  • Kee-hung Lai
  • Yi WuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10983)

Abstract

The development of online health platforms in recent years has drawn significant research attention to understanding patient participation. However, the unfairness in patient–doctor relationship development has been largely overlooked in the online health context. This study proposes and tests a model that examines how interactional unfairness (encompassing interpersonal unfairness and informational unfairness) influences online patient–doctor relationship quality and the contingent conditions of a doctor’s professional seniority and disease severity on the unfairness–relationship quality link. Using objective data with 31,521 observations from a leading online health platform, this study employed rare-event logistic regression to test the model. The results show that interpersonal unfairness and informational unfairness have negative and positive effects on relationship quality, respectively, and a doctor’s professional seniority and disease severity moderate the strength of the unfairness-relationship quality link. This study advances the knowledge of interactional unfairness in online health, and provides practical insights for online healthcare stakeholders into how to manage unfairness and consider the contingent factors to improve patient–doctor relationship in online health consultations.

Keywords

Online health consultation Relationship quality Interactional unfairness Professional seniority Disease severity 

References

  1. 1.
    Onotai, L.O., Ibekwe, U.: The perception of patients of doctor-patient relationship in otorhinolaryngology clinics of the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH) Nigeria. Port. H. Med. J. 6, 65–73 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X., Sykes, T.A.: “Doctors do too little technology”: a longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Inf. Syst. Res. 22(3), 523–546 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duan, G., Qiu, L., Yu, W., Hu, H.: Outpatient service quality and doctor-patient relationship: a study in Chinese public hospital. Int. J. Serv., Econ. Manag. 6(1), 97–111 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vick, S., Scott, A.: Agency in health care. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor–patient relationship. J. Health Econ. 17(5), 587–605 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pilnick, A., Dingwall, R.: On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: a critical review. Soc. Sci. Med. 72(8), 1374–1382 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckman, H.B., Markakis, K.M., Suchman, A.L., Frankel, R.M.: The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice: lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch. Intern. Med. 154(12), 1365–1370 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkhardt, M.E., Brass, D.J.: Changing patterns or patterns of change: the effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Adm. Sci. Q. 35(1), 104–127 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klecun, E.: Transforming healthcare: policy discourses of IT and patient-centred care. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 64–76 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rider, T., Malik, M., Chevassut, T.: Haematology patients and the internet – the use of on-line health information and the impact on the patient–doctor relationship. Patient Educ. Couns. 97(2), 223–238 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Broom, A.: Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qual. Health Res. 15(3), 325–345 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sreejesh, S., Mohapatra, S.: Theoretical development and hypotheses. Mixed Method Research Design, pp. 27–46. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ou, C.X., Pavlou, P.A., Davison, R.: Swift guanxi in online marketplaces: the role of computer-mediated communication technologies. MIS Q. 38(1), 209–230 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toombs, S.K.: The meaning of illness: a phenomenological approach to the patient-physician relationship. J. Med. Philos. 12(3), 219–240 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turel, O., Connelly, C.E.: Too busy to help: antecedents and outcomes of interactional justice in web-based service encounters. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 33(4), 674–683 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cropanzano, R., Ambrose, M.L., Greenberg, J., Cropanzano, R.: Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: a monistic perspective and a research agenda. In: Advances in Organizational Justice, pp. 119–151. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orth, U.: Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Soc. Justice Res. 15(4), 313–325 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frenkel, S.J., Li, M., Restubog, S.L.D.: Management, organizational justice and emotional exhaustion among Chinese migrant workers: evidence from two manufacturing firms. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 50(1), 121–147 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leung, K., Smith, P.B., Wang, Z., Sun, H.: Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: an organizational justice analysis. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 27(5), 947–962 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuo, Y.-F., Wu, C.-M.: Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service recovery of online shopping websites: perspectives on perceived justice and emotions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 32(2), 127–138 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mase, J.A., Ucho, A.: Job related tension, interactional justice and job involvement among workers of dangote cement company Gboko. Food Sci. Technol. 35(ahead), 2105–2112 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwortnik, R.J., Han, X.: The influence of guest perceptions of service fairness on lodging loyalty in China. Cornell Hosp. Q. 52(3), 321–332 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R.: Maximizing the impact of organization science: theory building at the intersection of disciplines and/or fields. J. Manag. Stud. 46(6), 1059–1075 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colquitt, J.A.: On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3), 386–400 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenberg, J.: Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 54(1), 81–103 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roch, S.G., Shanock, L.R.: Organizational justice in an exchange framework: clarifying organizational justice distinctions. J. Manag. 32(2), 299–322 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blau, P.M.: Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (1964)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gouldner, A.W.: The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25(2), 161–178 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliver, R.L., Swan, J.E.: Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach. J. Mark. 53(2), 21–35 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arrow, K.J.: Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53(5), 941–973 (1963)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rochaix, L.: Information asymmetry and search in the market for physicians’ services. J. Health Econ. 8(1), 53–84 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kolstad, J.T., Chernew, M.E.: Quality and consumer decision making in the market for health insurance and health care services. Med. Care Res. Rev. 66(1), 28–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen, Y.-R., Brockner, J., Greenberg, J.: When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 92(1), 1–21 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., Anderson, C.: Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev. 110(2), 265–284 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weissfeld, J.L., Brock, B.M., Kirscht, J.P., Hawthorne, V.M.: Reliability of health belief indexes: confirmatory factor analysis in sex, race, and age subgroups. Health Serv. Res. 21(6), 777–793 (1987)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jha, S., Balaji, M.: Perceived justice and recovery satisfaction: the moderating role of customer-perceived quality. Manag. Mark. 10(2), 132–147 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinfurt, K.P., et al.: The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials. Cancer 98(1), 166–175 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., Cowles, D.: Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark. 54(3), 68–81 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cooper, M.D.: Response time variations in an online search system. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 34(6), 374–380 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bies, R.J., Moag, J.S.: Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. Res. Negot. Organ. 1(1), 43–55 (1986)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shane, S.: Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manag. Sci. 48(1), 122–137 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lu, H.-Y., Shaw, B.R., Gustafson, D.H.: Online health consultation: examining uses of an interactive cancer communication tool by low-income women with breast cancer. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(7), 518–528 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yan, L., Tan, Y.: Feeling blue? Go online: an empirical study of social support among patients. Inf. Syst. Res. 25(4), 690–709 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Umefjord, G., et al.: Medical text-based consultations on the internet: a 4-year study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 77(2), 114–121 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nankai UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Harbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  3. 3.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong SAR
  4. 4.Tianjin UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations