Search Articles

View query in Help articles search
e.g. mhealth

Search Results (1 to 4 of 4 Results)

Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study

Each feature quantifies a core aspect of judgment, including risk aversion and loss aversion. Judgment variables have been shown to meet the criteria for lawfulness [37] that produce mechanistic models for prediction [33], with published relationships to brain circuitry [24-27,30] and psychiatric illness [28]. A more complete description of these judgment variables and their computation can be found in the RPT Framework section and in Table 1.

Nicole L Vike, Sumra Bari, Leandros Stefanopoulos, Shamal Lalvani, Byoung Woo Kim, Nicos Maglaveras, Martin Block, Hans C Breiter, Aggelos K Katsaggelos

JMIR Public Health Surveill 2024;10:e47979

Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

Download PDF Download XML
Article has an altmetric score of 109

When Similarity Beats Expertise—Differential Effects of Patient and Expert Ratings on Physician Choice: Field and Experimental Study

When Similarity Beats Expertise—Differential Effects of Patient and Expert Ratings on Physician Choice: Field and Experimental Study

In line with that, the credibility as well as the impact of a group’s judgment on an individual have been found to be positively correlated with the group’s size—both Web-based and offline (eg, [28,67]). Hence, rating volume is likely to amplify the effect of advice from similar patients (compared with expert advice) on physician evaluation and decision making. In other words: the larger the number of patients who rate a physician, the more influential the (averaged) patient rating.

Anne-Madeleine Kranzbühler, Mirella H P Kleijnen, Peeter W J Verlegh, Marije Teerling

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(6):e12454

Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

Download PDF Download XML
Article has an altmetric score of 2

Physician Rating Websites: What Aspects Are Important to Identify a Good Doctor, and Are Patients Capable of Assessing Them? A Mixed-Methods Approach Including Physicians’ and Health Care Consumers’ Perspectives

Physician Rating Websites: What Aspects Are Important to Identify a Good Doctor, and Are Patients Capable of Assessing Them? A Mixed-Methods Approach Including Physicians’ and Health Care Consumers’ Perspectives

As the Internet is a resource that may lead to or even encourage dangerous outcomes if guidance is lacking [60], more effort should be invested in fostering individuals’ critical judgment of health information on the Internet in general, and on PRWs in particular. In addition to education level and gender, age plays a significant role in individuals’ judgment of what is important to identify a good physician and can be judged after a doctoral visit.

Fabia Rothenfluh, Peter J Schulz

J Med Internet Res 2017;19(5):e127

Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

Download PDF Download XML
Article has an altmetric score of 5

The Criteria People Use in Relevance Decisions on Health Information: An Analysis of User Eye Movements When Browsing a Health Discussion Forum

The Criteria People Use in Relevance Decisions on Health Information: An Analysis of User Eye Movements When Browsing a Health Discussion Forum

We define a relevance criterion as a reason that contributes to the user’s relevance judgment. However, the reason can be expressed at different levels of abstraction. High-level reasons include usefulness, topicality, and quality. This study examined the detailed information in the text as information cues that affect relevance judgment.

Wenjing Pian, Christopher SG Khoo, Yun-Ke Chang

J Med Internet Res 2016;18(6):e136

Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

Download PDF Download XML
Article has an altmetric score of 2