Article: Research on the doctors' win in crowdsourcing competitions: perspectives on service content and competitive environment

Medical crowdsourcing competitions can help patients get more efficient and comprehensive treatment advice than "one-to-one" service, and doctors should be encouraged to actively participate. In the crowdsourcing competitions, winning the crowdsourcing competition is the driving force for doctors to continue to participate in the service. Therefore, how to improve the winning probability needs to be revealed. From the service content and competitive environment perspectives, this study introduces doctor competence indicators to investigate the key influence factors of doctors' wins on the online platform. The results show that the emotional interaction in doctors' service content positively influences doctors' wins. However, the influence of information interaction presents heterogeneity. Conclusive information helps doctors win, while suggestive information negatively affects them. For the competitive environment, the competitive environment negatively moderates the relationship between doctors' service content and doctors' wins. The results of this study provide important contributions to the research on crowdsourcing competitions and online healthcare services and guide the participants of the competition, including patients, doctors, and platforms.

Citing Articles

Offline visit intention of online patients: the Grice's maxims and patient involvement.

Cao X, Liu Y, Fang Z, Zhu Z BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025; 25(1):112.

PMID: 40050859 PMC: 11887380. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-025-02861-8.

References

1.

Khare R, Good B, Leaman R, Su A, Lu Z . Crowdsourcing in biomedicine: challenges and opportunities. Brief Bioinform. 2015; 17(1):23-32. PMC: 4719068. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv021. View

2.

Wilkinson S, KITZINGER C . Thinking differently about thinking positive: a discursive approach to cancer patients' talk. Soc Sci Med. 2000; 50(6):797-811. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00337-8. View

3.

Conrad E, Becker M, Powell B, Hall K . Improving Health Promotion Through the Integration of Technology, Crowdsourcing, and Social Media. Health Promot Pract. 2018; 21(2):228-237. DOI: 10.1177/1524839918811152. View

4.

Brabham D, Ribisl K, Kirchner T, Bernhardt J . Crowdsourcing applications for public health. Am J Prev Med. 2014; 46(2):179-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.016. View

5.

Swan M . Health 2050: The Realization of Personalized Medicine through Crowdsourcing, the Quantified Self, and the Participatory Biocitizen. J Pers Med. 2015; 2(3):93-118. PMC: 4251367. DOI: 10.3390/jpm2030093. View

6.

Wazny K . Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview. J Glob Health. 2018; 8(1):010502. PMC: 5840433. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.08.010502. View

7.

Wang X, Mudie L, Brady C . Crowdsourcing: an overview and applications to ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016; 27(3):256-61. PMC: 4957134. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000251. View

8.

Afshinnekoo E, Ahsanuddin S, Mason C . Globalizing and crowdsourcing biomedical research. Br Med Bull. 2016; 120(1):27-33. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldw044. View

9.

Ouyang P, Wang J, Jasmine Chang A . Patients need emotional support: Managing physician disclosure information to attract more patients. Int J Med Inform. 2021; 158:104674. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104674. View

10.

Huang Z, Duan C, Yang Y, Khanal R . Online selection of a physician by patients: the impression formation perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022; 22(1):193. PMC: 9309235. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-01936-0. View

11.

Terry C, Cain J . The Emerging Issue of Digital Empathy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016; 80(4):58. PMC: 4891856. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe80458. View

12.

McComb S, Bond R . CoDiagnose: Interactive software to harness collaborative diagnoses and to increase diagnostic accuracy amongst junior physicians. Technol Health Care. 2015; 23(3):243-56. DOI: 10.3233/THC-150892. View

Research on the Doctors' Win in Crowdsourcing Competitions: Perspectives on Service Content and Competitive Environment