JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v24i11e37505 36374547 10.2196/37505 Original Paper Original Paper The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach Mavragani Amaryllis Eysenbach Gunther McLennan Stuart Reviewer Anonymous Guetz Bernhard BA, MSc 1
Department of Marketing and International Management Alpen-Adria-Universitaet Klagenfurt Universitaetsstrasse 65-67 Klagenfurt am Woerthersee, 9020 Austria 43 6508611182 beguetz@edu.aau.at
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8909-0257 Bidmon Sonja PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1615-2116 Department of Marketing and International Management Alpen-Adria-Universitaet Klagenfurt Klagenfurt am Woerthersee Austria Corresponding Author: Bernhard Guetz beguetz@edu.aau.at 11 2022 14 11 2022 24 11 e37505 24 2 2022 20 4 2022 23 5 2022 11 10 2022 ©Bernhard Guetz, Sonja Bidmon. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.11.2022. 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) have become increasingly important in the cross-section between health and digitalization. Social influence plays a crucial role in human behavior in many domains of life, as can be demonstrated by the increase in high-profile influential individuals such as social media influencers (SMIs). Particularly in the health-specific environment, the opinion of family and friends has a significant influence on health-related decisions. However, so far, there has been little discussion about the role of social influence as an antecedent of behavioral intention to use PRWs.

 Objective

On the basis of theories of social psychology and technology acceptance and theories from the economic perspective, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs.

 Methods

We conducted 2 studies by applying a mixed methods approach including a total of 712 participants from the Austrian population. The impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs was investigated through linear regression and mediation and moderated mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro 4.0 in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp).

 Results

The 2 studies show similar results. In study 1, an experiment, no direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be detected. However, an indirect effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs via credibility (b=0.572; P=.005) and performance expectancy (b=0.340; P<.001) could be confirmed. The results of study 2, a cross-sectional study, demonstrate that social influence seems to have a direct impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.410; P<.001). However, when calculating the proposed mediation model, it becomes clear that this impact may partly be explained through the 2 mediator variables—credibility (b=0.208; P<.001) and performance expectancy (b=0.312; P<.001). In contrast to the observed direct and indirect effect, neither demographic nor psychographic variables have a significant moderating impact on the influencing chain in study 2.

 Conclusions

This study provides an indication that social influence has at least an indirect impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. It was observed that this impact is exerted through credibility and performance expectancy. According to the findings of both studies, social influence has the potential to boost the use of PRWs. As a result, these web-based networks might be a promising future interface between health care and digitalization, allowing health care practitioners to gain a beneficial external impact while also learning from feedback. Social influence nowadays is not just limited to friends and family but can also be exerted by SMIs in the domain of PRW use. Thus, from a marketing perspective, PRW providers could think of collaborating with SMIs, and our results could contribute to stimulating discussion in this vein.

 social influence eHealth literacy patient satisfaction physician rating websites Introduction Background

The number of websites where patients can publicly share their health care experiences has grown rapidly in recent years [1]. These web-based platforms are characterized by patients sharing their subjective perceived health experience with the entire web-based community by creating qualitative reviews and quantitative ratings [2]. In addition, there is an increasing number of patients who use these websites to make their health-related decisions as well as to search for and select a suitable health service provider [3]. Especially for health care providers, those web-based portals represent a cost-efficient possibility to achieve a positive external impact [4]. This shows that physician rating websites (PRWs) provide the opportunity to evaluate incidents in the health sector and make evidence-based decisions by referring to existing evaluations on rating sites [5].

 Theoretical Background

We built our conceptual framework on insights from several theoretical domains. These can be categorized as theories from the social psychological perspective, theories of technology acceptance, and theories from the economic perspective. From a social psychological perspective, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [6] and its extension, the theory of planned behavior (TPB), can be used as a framework for this study [7]. According to the TRA, it is assumed that individuals’ attitudes and subjective norms shape their behavioral intentions as well as their behavior [8]. It is proposed that individuals are more likely to perform a specific behavior if they have a positive attitude toward this behavior and believe that others want them to perform it (subjective norm) [9]. The TRA has formed the theoretical underpinning of many empirical studies so far. As the meta-analysis by Sheppard et al [10] in 1988 could demonstrate, the empirical results of several studies contribute to support the TRA [10]. However, the proposed influencing chain was further extended through the more sophisticated version, the TPB [11]. According to this theory, there are 3 independent core components that shape an individual’s behavioral intentions [12]. These include attitudes and subjective norms but also perceived behavioral control [13]. In this context, again, attitude describes the individual’s view of a particular behavior, and subjective norms describe what others might think about the particular behavior [14]. However, perceived behavioral control is an individual’s sense of control over their own behavior and represents an exogenous variable that, in contrast to the other 2, affects both behavioral intention and behavior itself [7].

The second stream of theories that provide both the foundation and framework for this study are the theories of technology acceptance and technology use. These theories are based on the TPB and integrate further theories, factors, and modifications depending on their individual characteristics [15-18]. The pioneering theory of this kind was the technology acceptance model (TAM), in which it was assumed that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use influence the attitude toward using [19,20]. According to this model, attitude toward using represents the decisive predictor for actual system use [21]. Further developments of the original TAM were published as TAM 2 [22] and TAM 3 [23]. The currently prevailing theory of technology acceptance was developed on this basis. The so-called Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [24,25] and its further development, the Extended UTAUT [26], propose factor models that are characterized by a vast number of independent influencing variables [27]. These include, for example, performance expectancy or social influence [28]. According to the UTAUT, these factors affect the use behavior regarding new or adapted technologies whereby the impact can be obtained directly or indirectly via behavioral intention [29].

Finally, from an economical perspective, the theory of information economics (TIE) [30] and the concept of source similarity [31] also contribute to the theoretical underpinning of this study. According to the TIE, consumers are not able to sufficiently assess the quality of credence products [30]. In the medical context, this means that patients are dependent on additional sources beyond their mere subjective perception to be able to assess the quality of the medical encounter and the medical treatment involved [32,33]. The concept of similarity, in which it is assumed that the recipient of a piece of advice evaluates the quality of the source, could be valuable in this context [34]. According to this theoretical concept, the decision for or against advice received is dependent on the transmitter’s attributed expertise and similarity to the perceiver’s point of view [35]. Sources that are perceived as similar seem to have a significant impact from the perceiver’s perspective because of the ascription of similar needs and expectations [31]. These assumptions show that advice from a person with a high similarity might lead to a change in behavior [36] and, thus, inter alia could also contribute to an increase in the behavioral intention to use PRWs.

The effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use a new or adapted technology is well known. For example, previous studies have already shown that social influence has an impact on the behavioral intention to use mobile-based assessments [37], Instagram messaging [38], web-based banking [39], eHealth services [40], social media [41], e-government [42], e-learning [43], and accounting platforms [44]. Although this review is not exhaustive and includes only a fraction of the studies that have investigated the relationship between social influence and the behavioral use intention, to the best of our knowledge, the relationship between social influence and behavioral intention to use PRWs has not been investigated so far. For this reason, we conducted 2 studies by applying a mixed methods approach to investigate the direct and indirect effects of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs, including potential moderation effects. The following section elaborates on this.

 Determinants of Behavioral Intention to Use PRWs

The behavioral intention to use a new or adapted technology refers to the strength of the ambition to perform a particular action [6,22]. On the basis of various studies in this field (eg, Krueger and Carsrud [45], Tonglet et al [46], Hardeman et al [47], Anderson and Schwager [48], Hoogenbosch et al [49], and Venkatesh and Zhang [24]), it can be assumed that the behavioral intention to use a new technology plays a crucial role in forecasting individuals’ actual or future use behavior.

Social Influence

Consumer decisions in the product or service sector are often strongly influenced by individuals who have an impact on the customers’ behavior [50]. The whole boom of influencer marketing nowadays is more or less based on this fact. However, in the medical field, the degree of perceived uncertainty from the patients’ perspective is frequently very high, which leads to the fact that social influence has a very strong effect on patients’ decision-making behavior [51]. Moreover, studies have shown that individuals whom patients feel closely related to have a strong impact on a variety of health-related decisions such as the choice of physician, the therapeutic method, or the frequency of medical consultation [52,53]. Beyond that, social influence was represented as subjective norm and was already an integral part of the TPB [11] and of subsequent theories from the field of technology acceptance [25]. For this reason, we focused on social influence as the independent variable and propose the following hypothesis: a positive social influence leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs (hypothesis 1).

Figure 1 shows the proposed direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs.

In hypotheses 2 to 6, we describe indirect effects, which increase the behavioral intention to use PRWs through credibility and performance expectancy based on social influence. Owing to this effect in which credibility and performance expectancy act as mediator variables, a potential direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs should be weakened [54]. This assumption is based on the fact that mediator variables generally affect the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable [55]. As we assume that the impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs can partly be explained through credibility and performance expectancy, we argue that, in the mediation model, the direct effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs gets weaker compared with the single linear regression (hypothesis 1a).

Direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use physician rating websites. H: hypothesis.

 Credibility

The concept of credibility describes the level of believability of a transmitter judged by the information perceiver [56]. Perceived credibility has an important impact on the whole consumer decision-making process, especially in the case of decisions under conditions of uncertainty [57]. In this context, it was shown that social influence not only can change or reinforce the attitude toward new or unknown subjects but also affects subject attributes such as the credibility of an information source [58]. Thus, credibility is a construct that is strongly controlled by social influence [59]. This leads to our second hypothesis: a more positive social influence leads to a higher credibility of PRWs (hypothesis 2).

In addition to social influence, the impact of credibility on behavioral use intention has also been investigated in the past [60]. In the context of technology acceptance, it was shown that credibility exerts a direct impact on the behavioral intention to use a new or adapted technology [61]. For this reason, we propose the following: a higher credibility leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs (hypothesis 3).

 Performance Expectancy

With regard to use of new technologies, performance expectancy is based on the fact that the use of new systems and the associated change of behavior can lead to an improvement of the current state [25]. This means that the desire and motivation to use and accept a new application or technology increases with the potential benefits derived from its use [62]. As users create individual content on rating portals, the question of credibility regarding this content in particular and the evaluation portal as a whole is essential to assess the performance expectancy [63]. Therefore, an increase in credibility can lead to web-based portals being perceived as more useful [64,65]. Thus, we expect the following: a higher credibility leads to a higher performance expectancy toward PRWs (hypothesis 4).

Nevertheless, alternative factors can also exert impact on performance expectancy. Fedorko et al [66] extended the UTAUT in the area of electronic banking and demonstrated that social influence had a positive effect on the expected performance. For this reason, the corresponding hypothesis is as follows: a more positive social influence leads to a higher performance expectancy regarding PRWs (hypothesis 5).

Studies in different fields have shown that performance expectancy has a strong effect on the behavioral intention to use new or adapted technologies [67]. In line with published results in the field of technology acceptance (eg, Anderson and Schwager [48], Carlsson et al [68], and Marchewka and Kostiwa [69]), we propose the following: a higher performance expectancy leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs (hypothesis 6).

Figure 2 shows the proposed relationships between the constructs and, thus, the proposed influencing chain.

Conceptual serial mediation model. H: hypothesis.

 Moderators of the Impact of Social Influence on the Behavioral Intention to Use PRWs

Age and gender are 2 demographic characteristics that have been discovered to affect the behavioral intention to use a new or adapted technology [70-73]. For this reason, we propose that the age of the participants moderates the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs (hypothesis 7a) and that the gender of the participants moderates the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs (hypothesis 7b).

In addition to these demographic characteristics, psychographic characteristics could also moderate the proposed effects. eHealth literacy describes the extent to which individuals are able to distinguish useful health-related information on the internet from less useful information [74]. Even though it was shown that eHealth literacy seems to exert little influence under certain conditions [75,76], it was also discovered that a high eHealth literacy can lead to an increase in the use behavior regarding health-related digital and mobile technologies [77,78]. In the context of PRWs, Schulz and Rothenfluh [79] observed that a higher eHealth literacy may mitigate the strength regarding the impact of individual reviews. This result shows that individuals with a high eHealth literacy seem to be less impressionable, especially in the medical web-based rating environment. On the basis of these results and assuming that individuals with a high eHealth literacy know where to find health-related information on the web, it is expected that a high eHealth literacy weakens the effects of our research model. For this reason, we propose that a high eHealth literacy weakens the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs (hypothesis 8a).

In addition to eHealth literacy, the level of skepticism regarding web-based reviews may also weaken the proposed effects in our research model. Consumer skepticism toward marketing and communication activities has a long research history [80]. Particularly in the digital environment, it has been shown that the level of skepticism toward web-based information can play a significant role in different types of decision-making [81,82]. A distinctive expression of consumer skepticism is review skepticism, which can be defined as mistrust toward electronic word of mouth in the context of web-based reviews [83]. In our study, review skepticism was conceptualized as a dispositional form of skepticism and not a situational one [81]. As it can be assumed that individuals who reveal a higher level of review skepticism are even more critical toward information on PRWs, we postulate that a high level of review skepticism weakens the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs (hypothesis 8b).

To check the hypotheses, a mixed methods approach was applied by conducting 2 studies with different target samples and an experimental as well as cross-sectional study approach. Both of the studies are explained in detail in the following sections.

 Study 1 Methods Study Design and Measures

To test the proposed hypothesized model as depicted in Figure 2, in a first step of our research endeavor, study 1 was conducted by performing a web-based questionnaire–based experiment with a between-subject design. Through randomized experimental manipulation, study participants were assigned to either the experimental group or the control group. After entering sociodemographic data, both groups received the following information: “Physician Rating Websites offer health care consumers the opportunity to evaluate their doctor anonymously. These evaluations could assist future or potential patients in decision-making regarding their future medical care.” In addition to that, the experimental group was asked to imagine that someone who influences their behavior or is important to them or whose opinion is appreciated has recommended the use of PRWs, whereas the control group did not receive this additional information. After that first part, respondents were asked to evaluate their perceived credibility and performance expectancy regarding PRW use as well as their behavioral intention to use PRWs.

The web-based questionnaire used in the experimental setting of study 1 was based on the adoption of established and validated scales [24,26,49,84-88]. The item wording of the questionnaire can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1 [24,26,49,84-88]. All items used were translated and back translated by both an English and a German native speaker who each had fluent language skills in their respective foreign language. To identify potential ambiguity in wording, a pretest with 20 participants was performed. After slight modifications based on the pretest results, the final version of the questionnaire was developed, which was then used for the main study.

 Procedure

Data collection was performed using the web-based survey tool Google Forms. Respondents were invited to participate through various web-based channels such as email or social media (snowball sampling), and the survey was conducted over a period of 1 month, from April 15, 2019, to May 14, 2019.

 Ethical Considerations

In Austria, there is no requirement to go through an institutional review board or an ethical committee when conducting research with human participants. The questionnaire and study methods adhere to Austrian and European Union privacy laws. The study, as well as the questionnaire, has received clearance from a number of academics and university professors. Participants were properly informed and instructed about their voluntary participation in a web-based survey and were also given the reassurance that their data would be managed with strict confidentiality using acceptable methods, processes, and protocols. Individuals who freely decided to participate in the survey were notified about it in written form before and after they completed the questionnaire. The data were handled in a strictly confidential and anonymous manner.

 Data Check

At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answers and that they would serve the objective of the survey best if they answered the questions honestly to minimize the potential risk of common method bias [89]. Participants were also informed that their information would be handled with complete secrecy using appropriate techniques, processes, and protocols [90].

 Measurement Models

SPSS Statistics (version 27; IBM Corp) was used to test the hypotheses. The data were analyzed using linear regressions [91]. In addition to that, regression-based mediation analyses [92] were conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS [93]. Of the 92 models included in the PROCESS macro, which are also depicted in the appendix of the corresponding book by Hayes [94], we identified model number 6 (Y=iy+c′X+b1M1+b2M2+ey) as the appropriate model for the mediation analysis [92,94]. Furthermore, we included 5000 bootstraps and chose a 95% CI. Social influence was defined as independent variable (X), the behavioral intention to use PRWs was defined as dependent outcome variable (Y), and credibility as well as performance expectancy were both conceptualized as mediators (M1 and M2).

 Results Analysis of Used Concepts

The Cronbach α ranged from .88 (performance expectancy) to .98 (behavioral intention to use PRWs) for all multi-item measures. The evaluation of construct means shows a rather high credibility (4.04, SD 1.43), performance expectancy (4.39, SD 1.55), and behavioral intention to use PRWs (4.15, SD 1.96). Table 1 provides a summary of the model construct and measures, including means, SDs, and Cronbach α calculation results.

Table 2 shows how the individual constructs correlate with each other. It is evident that there is a high correlation between performance expectancy and behavioral intention to use PRWs. In contrast, there is a low correlation between credibility and performance expectancy as well as between credibility and behavioral intention to use PRWs [95].

Model constructs and measures.

Variable and item Value, mean (SD) Cronbach α
Credibility .96
PRWsa seem to be credible 4.54 (1.60)
PRWs seem to be reliable 4.49 (1.56)
PRWs seem to be honest 4.34 (1.65)
PRWs seem to be sincere 4.06 (1.64)
PRWs seem to be trustworthy 4.01 (1.65)
PRWs seem to have expert knowledge 3.77 (1.73)
PRWs seem to be experienced 3.72 (1.60)
PRWs seem to contain knowledgeable content 3.93 (1.72)
PRWs seem to be qualified 3.86 (1.65)
PRWs seem to be knowledgeable 3.73 (1.70)
Performance expectancy .88
I think that PRWs are a useful tool 4.73 (1.70)
By using PRWs, I feel like I have more control over my health 4.22 (1.70)
Using PRWs will enhance my effectiveness in managing my health care 4.23 (1.80)
Intention to use PRWs .98
I intend to use PRWs in the future 4.14 (2.01)
I will try to use PRWs 4.16 (1.98)
I plan to use PRWs 4.13 (2.02)

aPRW: physician rating website.

Construct correlationsa.

Variable Value, mean (SD) Correlations (2-sided; 95% CI)
1 2 3
Credibility 4.04 (1.43) 1 0.29 (0.16-0.42) 0.23 (0.10-0.36)
Performance expectancy 4.39 (1.55) 0.29 (0.16-0.42) 1 0.53 (0.42-0.62)
Intention to use PRWsb 4.15 (1.96) 0.23 (0.10-0.36) 0.53 (0.42-0.62) 1

aAll correlations have a P value of <.001.

bPRW: physician rating website.

 Participant Characteristics

A total of 194 participants took part in the study. As the questionnaire was primarily sent out in the university environment, it can be assumed that most study participants were members (students and employees) of a midsized Austrian university. Table 3 provides the sample description.

Sample description (N=194).

Sociodemographic characteristics Participants, n (%)
Sex
Female 106 (54.6)
Male 88 (45.4)
Age (years)
20 to 24 31 (16)
25 to 29 18 (9.3)
30 to 34 26 (13.4)
35 to 39 56 (28.9)
40 to 44 15 (7.7)
45 to 49 2 (1)
50 to 54 8 (4.1)
55 to 59 13 (6.7)
≥60 20 (10.3)
Education
Compulsory education 20 (10.3)
Vocational secondary education 9 (4.6)
Apprenticeship 29 (14.9)
High school 29 (14.9)
University degree 80 (41.2)
No answer 27 (13.9)
Marital status
Single 43 (22.2)
Close-partnered 68 (35.1)
Married 42 (21.6)
Divorced 5 (2.6)
No answer 36 (18.6)
Occupation
Salaried employee 102 (52.6)
Unemployed 3 (1.5)
Self-employed 8 (4.1)
In training (pupil or student) 47 (24.2)
Retired 3 (1.5)
No answer 31 (16)
Area of living
Urban 116 (59.8)
Rural 74 (38.1)
No answer 4 (2.1)
Test of Hypotheses

In hypothesis 1, we propose that a positive social influence leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs. This relationship could not be confirmed by the data as no direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be found (b=−0.032; P=.91; SE −0.008; t1=−0.114). For this reason, hypothesis 1 has to be rejected. Figure 3 shows the direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs.

In hypothesis 1a, we assume that, in the mediation model, the direct effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs gets weaker compared with the single linear regression. However, as the direct effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs could not be demonstrated in hypothesis 1, it cannot be assumed that there is a direct effect between the independent and the dependent variable in the mediation model. This assumption is confirmed by the data as there is no significant direct effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs in the mediation model (b=−0.037; P=.88). For this reason, hypothesis 1a has to be rejected.

Hypotheses 2 to 6 describe the indirect effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs through 2 mediators (ie, credibility and performance expectancy). In this context, hypothesis 2 suggests that a positive social influence leads to a higher credibility of PRWs. The results referring to this assumption confirm that a positive social influence led to an increased credibility of PRWs (b=0.572; P=.005). This shows that, for the experimental group, PRWs seemed to be more credible than for the control group. Thus, hypothesis 2 is confirmed.

Referring to hypothesis 3, it is believed that a higher credibility also leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs. However, this relationship could not be observed (b=−0.123; P=.18). For this reason, hypothesis 3 has to be rejected.

Hypothesis 4 examines the influence of credibility on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. The analysis in the mediation model confirms the expected relationship. Higher credibility led to an increase in performance expectancy (b=0.340; P<.001). For this reason, hypothesis 4 is confirmed.

Hypothesis 5 assumes that a stronger social influence also leads to a direct increase in performance expectancy. This relationship could not be observed (b=−0.298; P=.17). For this reason, hypothesis 5 has to be rejected.

Hypothesis 6 examines the influence of performance expectancy on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. The analysis in the mediation model confirms the expected relationship. Higher performance expectancy led to a substantial increase in the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.630; P<.001). Thus, hypothesis 6 is confirmed. Figure 4 shows the mediation model including estimates and P values for the linear regressions. In addition to that, Table 4 shows the detailed outcomes for our proposed mediation model, including model summary, SEs, and 2-tailed t test and P values.

Nevertheless, to check the external validity of the proposed effect chain and replicate the findings, another study was conducted. To assure external validity, another research setting (ie, a cross-sectional study instead of an experimental setting) was applied. In addition, the target sample of the second study should reflect a broader range of individuals, representing the general (web-based) population in a better way, and we intended to use a larger sample size instead of the small sample of 194 largely university members (students and employees) from a southern Austrian university.

Direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use physician rating websites (study 1). *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001; n.s.: not significant.

Serial mediation model (study 1). *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001; n.s.: not significant.

Serial mediation model outcomes.

Outcome variable and variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95% CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 3.740 (0.147; 3.450 to 4.029) 25.457 (1) <.001
Social influence 0.572 (0.202; 0.175 to 0.970) 2.838 (1) .005
Performance expectancyc
Constant 3.176 (0.326; 2.533 to 3.819) 9.743 (2) <.001
Social influence −0.298 (0.218; −0.729 to 0.132) −1.366 (2) .17
Credibility 0.340 (0.077; 0.189 to 0.491) 4.438 (2) <.001
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant 0.904 (0.450; 0.018 to 1.790) 2.012 (3) .046
Social influence −0.037 (0.247; −0.525 to 0.451) −0.149 (3) .88
Credibility 0.123 (0.091; −0.056 to 0.301) 1.354 (3) .18
Performance expectancy 0.630 (0.082; 0.469 to 0.791) 7.730 (3) <.001

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.201; R2=0.040; P=.005.

cR=0.307; R2=0.095; P<.001.

dR=0.532; R2=0.283; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

 Study 2 Methods Study Design and Measures

In study 2, the constructs were once again measured using existing and validated measures [24,26,49,84-88,96-98]. The questionnaire used in study 2 can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2 [24,26,49,84-88,96-98]. Again, all items were translated and back translated by native English and German speakers who each had fluent language skills in their respective foreign language. The scale options in all variables of interest, apart from the demographic ones, ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).

In contrast to the experimental research applied in study 1, the cross-sectional research approach applied in study 2 is less appropriate to indicate the direction of proposed effects. Thus, the direction of effects is not specified, and study models with alternative effect chains could be set up. However, the use of cross-sectional data is quite common in the analysis of mediation effects as cross-sectional studies are often the only feasible approach for certain topics [99-109] and for targeting larger sample sizes as we intended in study 2. Thus, the methodological approach of our cross-sectional study, which was used in study 2, is in line with existing literature using cross-sectional data to test hypothesized models [99-109]. Both of our studies apply different methodological approaches but lead to comparable results. This agreement in the results supports the validity of the proposed mediation model. However, it has been mentioned previously that cross-sectional data alone may not be suitable to confirm or reject hypotheses proposing a causal direction of effects. To act cautiously and anticipate points of criticism in this vein, we decided not to report in the Results section of study 2 whether hypotheses were confirmed or had to be rejected but to report whether the data were in line with the proposed hypotheses or not.

 Procedure

Data collection was carried out in February 2021 and March 2021. The data were gathered using a web-based panel (Clickworker GmbH), which is a research crowdsourcing platform comparable with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

 Ethical Considerations

The study methodology, questionnaire, and survey instrument adhered to European Union and Austrian privacy laws. The questionnaire did not address any sensitive subjects, and the evaluation process precluded drawing any conclusions about the survey respondents. The questions were kept generic, and there was never any risk of harm from answering them. None of the panel members were asked for any sensitive information, and they all agreed to the data gathering. As mentioned previously, the study was conducted using the crowdsourcing platform Clickworker. This platform has pledged to abide by the General Data Protection Regulation standards and has obtained ISO 27001 certification. Before being approved, all projects and orders must pass an auditing procedure. In this process, professional staff members review for any survey issues, requests for personal information, and instances of discriminatory or unethical content. Orders requesting personal information or containing offensive or unethical content are not accepted. Participants were given the proper information and instructions on their voluntary participation in a web-based survey as well as the knowledge that their data would be handled with utmost secrecy. The processing of the data was completely private and anonymous.

 Data Check

The constructs included in study 2 were self-reported measures that are associated with the risk of common method bias [110]. To minimize the potential risk of common method bias, we informed participants that there were no right or wrong answers and that they would serve the purpose of the survey best if they answered the questions as honestly as possible [89]. In addition to that, participants were informed that their data would be treated with absolute confidentiality using suitable methods, procedures, and protocols [90].

Furthermore, we ran multiple pretests and eliminated unclear or imprecise data sets [111]. Using the survey tool LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH), the data were thoroughly checked for inconsistent answer patterns, flatliners, and very short answer times. In this context, we eliminated questionnaires from respondents who used descending or ascending numerical sequences for the items throughout the questionnaire (inconsistent answer patterns), consistently responded with the same answer (flatliners), or completed the questionnaire in <265 seconds (very short answer times). The minimum response time for answering the questionnaire was pretested by the authors.

By incorporating 3 security levels in the web-based questionnaire, we followed guidelines to reduce validity concerns when using crowdsourcing platforms (eg, see Aguinis et al [112]). First, logic tasks and attention tests were used to verify that survey participants’ attention and integrity were maintained. Participants had to solve a mathematical equation to verify that they were human and that they were eligible before they could begin answering the questions. In addition to that, there was a check for attention. See Multimedia Appendix 3 for an example equation and the attention check. To verify that participants had read the introductory text of the third question group, they had to pick a specific answer choice in a specific question as part of this attention check (see Oppenheimer et al [113] and Kung et al [114]). Finally, each participant was assigned a cookie to prevent them from taking part again.

There were no missing data in the survey as the questionnaire instrument was not set up to allow for unanswered questions.

 Measurement Models

SPSS Statistics (version 27; IBM Corp) was used to test the hypotheses. The data were analyzed using linear regressions [91]. In addition to that, regression-based mediation analyses [92] were conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS [93]. Of the 92 models included in the PROCESS macro, which are also depicted in the appendix of the corresponding book by Hayes [93], we again identified model number 6 (Y=iy+c′X+b1M1+b2M2+ey) for the mediation analysis and model number 8 (Y=iy+c′1X+c′2W+c′3XW+b1M1+b2M2+ey) for the moderated mediation analysis [92,94] as the appropriate models in our case. Furthermore, we included 5000 bootstraps and chose a 95% CI. Social influence was defined as independent variable (X), the behavioral intention to use PRWs was defined as dependent outcome variable (Y), and credibility as well as performance expectancy both were conceptualized as mediators (M1 and M2). Age, gender, and eHealth literacy as well as review skepticism acted as moderator variables in our models. The analyses were performed in a hierarchical order starting with the basic mediation model. After that, the proposed moderators were included one after the other.

 Results Analysis of Used Concepts

The Cronbach α ranged from.79 (performance expectancy) to.97 (behavioral intention to use PRWs) for all multi-item measures. The evaluation of construct means shows a rather high credibility (4.44, SD 1.11) and behavioral intention to use PRWs (4.14, SD 1.90). The mean value of performance expectancy (3.62, SD 1.26) is slightly above the midpoint of the scale. However, on average, social influence (2.47, SD 1.56) in the domain of PRWs in real life (as opposed to the experimental manipulation of social influence in study 1) seems to be rather low. Table 5 provides a summary of the model construct and measures, including means, SDs, and Cronbach α calculation results.

Table 6 shows how the individual constructs correlate with each other. It is evident that there is a high correlation between performance expectancy and behavioral intention to use PRWs. By contrast, there is a low correlation between social influence and credibility. The remaining constructs are characterized by a medium correlation with each other [95].

Model constructs and measures.

Variable and item Value, mean (SD) Cronbach α
Social influence 2.47 (1.56) .96
People who influence my behavior think that I should use PRWsa 2.39 (1.57)
People who are important to me think that I should use PRWs 2.49 (1.61)
People whose opinion I value think that I should use PRWs 2.53 (1.66)
Credibility 4.44 (1.11) .92
PRWs seem to be credible 4.50 (1.76)
PRWs seem to be reliable 4.37 (1.22)
PRWs seem to be trustworthy 4.44 (1.21)
Performance expectancy 3.62 (1.26) .79
I think that PRWs are a useful tool 4.99 (1.50)
By using PRWs, I feel like I have more control over my health 3.14 (1.71)
Using PRWs will enhance my effectiveness in managing my health care 3.64 (1.67)
Overall, PRWs will be useful in managing my health care 2.70 (1.55)
Intention to use PRWs 4.14 (1.90) .97
I intend to use PRWs in the future 4.24 (1.97)
I will try to use PRWs 4.18 (1.92)
I plan to use PRWs 4.00 (2.00)

aPRW: physician rating website.

Construct correlationsa.

Variable Value, mean (SD) Correlations (2-sided; 95% CI)
1 2 3 4
Social influence 2.47 (1.56) 1 0.29 (0.21-0.37) 0.49 (0.43-0.56) 0.41 (0.34-0.48)
Credibility 4.44 (1.11) 0.29 (0.21-0.37) 1 0.50 (0.42-0.56) 0.47 (0.40-0.54)
Performance expectancy 3.62 (1.26) 0.50 (0.43-0.56) 0.50 (0.43-0.56) 1 0.59 (0.53-0.64)
Intention to use PRWsb 4.14 (1.90) 0.41 (0.34-0.48) 0.47 (0.40-0.54) 0.59 (0.53-0.64) 1

aAll correlations have a P value of <.001.

bPRW: physician rating websites.

 Participant Characteristics

A total of 852 participants from Austria took part in the study, with 334 (39.2%) of them being eliminated as they were not able to pass the manipulation check (239/334, 71.6%) or were characterized by an implausible response behavior or insufficient answer time (95/334, 28.4%). See Multimedia Appendix 4 for a graphical data cleansing description. This data cleansing mechanism resulted in a total of 518 survey participants who form the calculation sample for this study. Table 7 provides the sample description.

Sample description (N=518).

Sociodemographic characteristics Participants, n (%)
Sex
Female 289 (55.8)
Male 227 (43.8)
Intersex 2 (0.4)
Age (years)
15 to 19 62 (12)
20 to 24 141 (27.2)
25 to 29 101 (19.5)
30 to 34 75 (14.5)
35 to 39 64 (12.4)
40 to 44 32 (6.2)
45 to 49 14 (2.7)
50 to 54 13 (2.5)
55 to 59 8 (1.5)
≥60 8 (1.5)
Education
Compulsory education 27 (5.2)
Vocational secondary education 55 (10.6)
Apprenticeship 72 (13.9)
High school 214 (41.3)
University degree 150 (29)
Marital status
Single 203 (39.2)
Close-partnered 218 (42.1)
Married 87 (16.8)
Divorced 10 (1.9)
Occupation
Salaried employee 245 (47.3)
Unemployed 43 (8.3)
Self-employed 47 (9.1)
In training (pupil or student) 175 (33.8)
Retired 8 (1.5)
Area of living
Urban 322 (62.2)
Rural 196 (37.8)
Test of Hypotheses

In hypothesis 1, we propose that a positive social influence leads to a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs. This relationship is in line with the data as it was shown that respondents whose social environment influenced them to a greater extent to use those websites seemed to have a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs than respondents who were less influenced to use PRWs by their social environment (b=0.503; P<.001; SE 0.049; t1=10.197). Thus, the data were in line with hypothesis 1. Figure 5 shows the direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. However, in hypothesis 1a, we assume that the impact of social influence on behavioral intention to use PRWs is partly explained by the mediator variables credibility and performance expectancy. Therefore, this conclusion would lead to the direct impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs being weaker in the mediation model than in the simple linear regression. In this context, the data are in line with hypothesis 1a as the direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs in the mediation model was weaker (b=0.177; P<.001) than the effect measured in the simple linear regression (b=0.410; P<.001). On the basis of these results, the data were in line with hypothesis 1a.

Hypotheses 2 to 6 describe the indirect effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs through 2 mediators (ie, credibility and performance expectancy). In this context, hypothesis 2 suggests that a positive social influence leads to a higher credibility of PRWs. The results referring to this assumption suggest that, for respondents whose social environment influenced them to a greater extent to use those websites, PRWs seemed to be more credible than for respondents who were less influenced to use PRWs by their social environment (b=0.208; P<.001). Thus, the data are in line with hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 assumes that higher credibility also increases the behavioral intention to use PRWs. Study participants who indicated that PRWs were more credible also seemed to have a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.402; P<.001). For this reason, hypothesis 3 is in line with the data.

Referring to hypothesis 4, it is believed that a higher credibility also leads to a higher performance expectancy toward PRWs. Results show that respondents reporting a higher credibility regarding PRWs also reported a higher performance expectancy toward PRWs (b=0.431; P<.001). On the basis of these results, hypothesis 4 is in line with the data.

Hypothesis 5 assumes that a stronger social influence also leads to a direct increase in performance expectancy. In this context, it could be observed that respondents whose social environment influenced them to a greater extent to use those websites also reported a higher performance expectancy regarding PRWs (b=0.312; P<.001). For this reason, hypothesis 5 is in line with the data.

Hypothesis 6 examines the influence of performance expectancy on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. The analysis in the mediation model showed that respondents who reported a higher performance expectancy regarding PRWs also reported a higher behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.605; P<.001). Thus, hypothesis 6 is in line with the data. Figure 6 shows the mediation model, including estimates and P values for the linear regressions. In addition to that, Table 8 shows the detailed outcomes for our proposed mediation model, including model summary, SEs, and t test and P values.

Hypotheses 7 and 8 control for potential moderator effects in our model. In hypothesis 7a, we suggest that the age of the participants affects the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs. To test this hypothesis, we created a subsample consisting of 2 age groups. Respondents aged <39 years were assigned to the younger age group (443/518, 85.5%), and respondents aged ≥39 years were assigned to the older age group (75/518, 14.5%). No significant interaction effects could be demonstrated when examining age as a potential moderator variable. For this reason, hypothesis 7a had to be rejected. However, it could be shown that higher age has a negative influence on performance expectancy (b=−0.501; P=.04). Table 9 summarizes the results of the corresponding moderated mediation model.

In hypothesis 7b, we suggest that the gender of the participants affects the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs. To examine this assumption, we excluded participants who reported that they belonged to the intersex category. The exclusion was made as the response rate of this population group was very low (2/518, 0.4%). No significant interaction effects could be demonstrated when examining gender as a potential moderator variable. For this reason, hypothesis 7b had to be rejected. Table 10 summarizes the results of the corresponding moderated mediation model.

In hypothesis 8a, we suggest that a high level of eHealth literacy weakens the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs. Accordingly, a high eHealth literacy should weaken the direct as well as indirect effect in the moderated mediation model. Even though in the model it was shown that eHealth literacy had a positive effect on credibility (b=0.266; P=.002), this effect could not be observed between eHealth literacy and the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.173; P=.17). In addition to that, the proposed interaction effects could also not be observed as eHealth literacy did not exert significant influence on the effect between social influence and credibility (b=0.018; P=.55) or the effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.005; P=.92). For this reason, hypothesis 8a had to be rejected. Table 11 summarizes the results of the corresponding moderated mediation model.

Finally, in hypothesis 8b, we suggest that a high level of review skepticism weakens the effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs as well as between social influence and credibility of PRWs. Accordingly, a high level of review skepticism should weaken the direct as well as indirect effect in the moderated mediation model. Even though in the model it was shown that review skepticism had a negative effect on credibility (b=−0.254; P<.001), this effect could not be observed between review skepticism and the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=−0.111; P=.24). In addition to that, the proposed interaction effects could also not be observed as review skepticism did not exert significant influence on the effect between social influence and credibility (b=0.025; P=.25) or the effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.017; P=.58). For this reason, hypothesis 8b had to be rejected. Table 12 summarizes the results of the corresponding moderated mediation model.

Direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use physician rating websites (study 2). *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001; n.s.: not significant.

Serial mediation model (study 2). *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001; n.s.: not significant.

Serial mediation model outcomes.

Outcome variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95% CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 3.925 (0.088; 3.751 to 4.098) 44.393 (1) <.001
Social influence 0.208 (0.030; 0.148 to 0.267) 6.845 (1) <.001
Performance expectancyc
Constant 0.935 (0.181; 0.580 to 1.290) 5.172 (2) <.001
Social influence 0.312 (0.030; 0.254 to 0.370) 10.590 (2) <.001
Credibility 0.431 (0.041; 0.351 to 0.512) 10.516 (2) <.001
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant −0.275 (0.274; −0.814 to 0.264) −1.003 (3) .32
Social influence 0.177 (0.048; 0.082 to 0.271) 3.665 (3) <.001
Credibility 0.402 (0.067; 0.271 to 0.533) 6.012 (3) <.001
Performance expectancy 0.605 (0.065; 0.477 to 0.734) 9.283 (3) <.001

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.289; R2=0.083; P<.001.

cR=0.615; R2=0.378; P<.001.

dR=0.637; R2=0.406; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

Results of the moderated mediation analyses with age as moderator.

Outcome variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95% CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 3.992 (0.097; 3.802 to 4.182) 41.299 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.194 (0.033; 0.130 to 0.258) 5.952 (3) <.001
Age −0.383 (0.239; −0.853 to 0.087) −1.600 (3) .11
Interaction: (social influence × age) 0.071 (0.091; −0.108 to 0.249) 0.777 (3) .44
Performance expectancyc
Constant 2.714 (0.099; 2.520 to 2.908) 27.438 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.383 (0.033; 0.318 to 0.449) 11.504 (3) <.001
Age −0.501 (0.245; −0.982 to −0.020) –2.045 (3) .04
Interaction: (social influence × age) 0.098 (0.093; −0.085 to 0.281) 1.054 (3) .29
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant −0.124 (0.285; −0.682 to 0.435) −0.435 (5) .66
Social influence 0.152 (0.050; 0.053 to 0.251) 3.021 (5) .003
Credibility 0.397 (0.067; 0.266 to 0.528) 5.942 (5) <.001
Performance expectancy 0.596 (0.065; 0.468 to 0.725) 9.135 (5) <.001
Age −0.650 (0.331; −1.300 to 0.001) −1.961 (5) .05
Interaction: (social influence × age) 0.189 (0.125; −0.058 to 0.435) 1.503 (5) .13

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.299; R2=0.090; P<.001.

cR=0.503; R2=0.253; P<.001.

dR=0.640; R2=0.410; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

Results of the moderated mediation analyses with gender as moderator.

Outcome variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95 CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 3.916 (0.271; 3.384 to 4.448) 14.458 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.222 (0.096; 0.034 to 0.410) 2.317 (3) .02
Gender 0.002 (0.181; −0.353 to 0.357) 0.011 (3) .99
Interaction: (social influence × gender) −0.009 (0.061; −0.129 to 0.112) −0.145 (3) .88
Performance expectancyc
Constant 2.539 (0.278; 1.992 to 3.085) 9.125 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.454 (0.098; 0.260 to 0.647) 4.608 (3) <.001
Gender 0.058 (0.186; −0.306 to 0.422) 0.313 (3) .75
Interaction: (social influence × gender) −0.034 (0.063; −0.158 to 0.090) −0.542 (3) .59
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant 0.250 (0.445; −0.623 to 1.124) 0.563 (5) .57
Social influence 0.169 (0.134; −0.096 to 0.420) −1.233 (5) .22
Credibility 0.407 (0.065; 0.280 to 0.535) 6.255 (5) <.001
Performance expectancy 0.599 (0.062; 0.476 to 0.721) 9.609 (5) <.001
Gender −0.364 (0.240; −0.836 to 0.108) −1.514 (5) .13
Interaction: (social influence × gender) 0.078 (0.083; −0.144 to 0.180) 0.216 (5) .83

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.290; R2=0.084; P<.001.

cR=0.495; R2=0.245; P<.001.

dR=0.643; R2=0.413; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

Results of the moderated mediation analyses with eHealth literacy as moderator.

Outcome variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95% CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 2.463 (0.490; 1.501 to 3.425) 5.031 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.111 (0.170; −0.224 to 0.445) 0.649 (3) .52
eHealth literacy 0.266 (0.087; 0.095 to 0.438) 3.056 (3) .002
Interaction: (social influence × eHealth literacy) 0.018 (0.030; −0.042 to 0.078) 0.592 (3) .55
Performance expectancyc
Constant 1.920 (0.519; 0.901 to 2.940) 3.700 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.342 (0.181; −0.012 to 0.698) 1.899 (3) .06
eHealth literacy 0.129 (0.092; −0.053 to 0.310) 1.394 (3) .17
Interaction: (social influence × eHealth literacy) 0.011 (0.032; −0.052 to 0.074) 0.338 (3) .74
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant −1.030 (0.719; −2.442 to 0.382) −1.433 (5) .15
Social influence 0.165 (0.244; −0.315 to 0.644) 0.674 (5) .50
Credibility 0.355 (0.069; 0.220 to 0.490) 5.158 (5) <.001
Performance expectancy 0.601 (0.065; 0.474 to 0.729) 9.267 (5) <.001
eHealth literacy 0.173 (0.126; −0.074 to 0.420) 1.378 (5) .17
Interaction: (social influence × eHealth literacy) 0.005 (0.043; −0.081 to 0.090) 0.103 (5) .92

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.399; R2=0.159; P<.001.

cR=0.509; R2=0.260; P<.001.

dR=0.643; R2=0.414; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

Results of the moderated mediation analyses with review skepticism as moderator.

Outcome variable Coefficient ba (SE; 95% CI) t test (df) P value
Credibilityb
Constant 5.012 (0.288; 4.447 to 5.579) 17.403 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.086 (0.092; −0.094 to 0.266) 0.936 (3) .35
Review skepticism −0.254 (0.066; −0.384 to 0.124) −3.836 (3) <.001
Interaction: (social influence × review skepticism) 0.025 (0.022; −0.018 to 0.068) 1.143 (3) .25
Performance expectancyc
Constant 3.158 (0.303; 2.564 to 3.752) 10.440 (3) <.001
Social influence 0.307 (0.096; 0.118 to 0.496) 3.188 (3) .002
Review skepticism −0.126 (0.069; −0.262 to 0.011) −1.809 (3) .07
Interaction: (social influence × review skepticism) 0.022 (0.023; −0.023 to 0.067) 0.954 (3) .34
Intention to use PRWsd,e
Constant 0.277 (0.518; −0.740 to 1.294) 0.535 (5) .59
Social influence 0.104 (0.131; −0.153 to 0.362) 0.797 (5) .43
Credibility 0.382 (0.069; 0.247 to 0.516) 5.570 (5) <.001
Performance expectancy 0.606 (0.065; 0.478 to 0.734) 9.287 (5) <.001
Review skepticism −0.111 (0.095; −0.298 to 0.075) −1.174 (5) .24
Interaction: (social influence × review skepticism) 0.017 (0.031; −0.044 to 0.078) 0.555 (5) .58

aRegression coefficient.

bR=0.365; R2=0.133; P<.001.

cR=0.501; R2=0.251; P<.001.

dR=0.639; R2=0.408; P<.001.

ePRW: physician rating website.

 Discussion Principal Findings

On the basis of the results of studies 1 and 2, social influence exerts a statistically significant impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs [115,116]. However, in study 1, it was shown that this impact might only be exerted indirectly through the 2 mediator variables credibility and performance expectancy. Notwithstanding, when we tested the proposed chain of effects in study 2, we were able to reveal 2 further findings. On the one hand, we found a direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. However, this direct effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs was significantly weakened in the mediation model. This result suggests that the direct effect between the independent and the dependent variable is at least partially explained by the 2 mediator variables [92,117]. Furthermore, the proposed indirect effect itself could again be observed in a significant expression.

In contrast to the successfully predicted direct and indirect effects between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs, the proposed moderation effects could not be observed in our moderated mediation model. Even though eHealth literacy and review skepticism seem to affect the credibility of PRWs, we were not able to observe a significant effect of age, gender, eHealth literacy, or review skepticism on the proposed mediation model.

These findings strongly support theories from the social psychological perspective, theories of technology acceptance, and theories from the economic perspective. From a social psychological perspective, the results of the 2 studies support both the TRA and its extension, the TPB. Both theories serve as a basis for the factor model studied. However, the TRA can also generally be reconstructed by means of the factors investigated. As described in the Introduction, social influence is a continuation of subjective norms [25]. Credibility as well as performance expectancy may be considered as determinants of attitude toward behavior, and behavioral intention is a construct that is incorporated as a result of attitudes and subjective norms within the TRA [9]. The 2 studies also show a generally similar influencing chain. Thus, the results are in line with a large number of empirical studies in the field of social psychological theories (eg, Gotch and Hall [118], Fishbein [119], Ajzen et al [120], Lada et al [121], and Buttle and Bok [122]) and provide evidence for the validity of the TRA.

The results of the 2 studies also support theories of technology acceptance as it was shown that social influence affects the behavioral intention to use PRWs indirectly (studies 1 and 2) and directly (study 2). Furthermore, the impact of performance expectancy on the dependent variable could also be demonstrated in the factor model. Even though not all technology acceptance variables were considered in the factor model, these studies still provide evidence for the validity of the respective influencing paths included in the UTAUT.

Finally, the findings of both studies strongly support the TIE as they show that individuals in our study samples built their decision for or against the behavioral intention to use PRWs on social influence through credibility and performance expectancy. This outcome indicates that individuals may base their decision for or against the use of these web-based platforms at least partly on factors other than the performance quality of PRWs. In addition to that, our results support the similarity effect as we were able to show that advice from a person with a high similarity could lead to an increased behavioral intention to use PRWs.

Furthermore, a path model in the form examined in this study has never been tested in the context of PRWs. Therefore, the added value of the studies also lies in developing practical implications from the relationships that could specifically increase the degree of use of PRWs (eg, through the targeted use of social influence by social media influencers [SMIs]).

 Limitations

Despite the significance of the findings, a number of limitations need to be considered. Particularly in web-based surveys, it is to be expected that research participants might be disinterested or respond in a one-sided manner. However, we tried our best to address and solve the issue of a possible common method bias. We attempted to minimize the risk of a potential common method bias by conducting information processes before and during the completion of the questionnaire by study participants. Furthermore, participants in a web-based survey may have a more thorough grasp of web-based issues. This might have resulted in a more prominent representation of the behavioral intention to use PRWs in the study population. In addition to that, by focusing on social influence as the only independent variable, we disregarded a number of alternative influencing variables. This may have led to a disproportionate impact of social influence on our study model. Finally, as was already explained in detail in the Methods section of study 2, it should be noted that a cross-sectional study, in contrast to the experimental study design of study 1, does not specify a direction of effects. In general, this means that the effect of the factors on each other could also be different from that proposed in the study model. An explanation could be that individuals tend to associate with people who share their attitudes and viewpoints (eg, see Bos et al [123]). Another explanation could be that people tend to exaggerate the degree to which their opinions and those of others are similar (eg, see Dunning et al [124]). We have made several attempts to address this criticism. First, the factor model of this study was built on established theories of social psychology and technology acceptance. In addition, we used a 2-step procedure to check the appropriateness of the proposed influencing chain. In a first step, we conducted a study applying an experimental setting to test the meaningfulness of the causal model. The cross-sectional study was the second step of our research endeavor. Although this approach lends considerable credence to the study model, there is still a certain residual risk that the influence paths of the integrated factors are not as interrelated as suggested.

 Conclusions and Practical Implications

The aim of the bipartite research endeavor was to investigate if and how social influence affects the behavioral intention to use PRWs. In study 1, the proposed indirect effect between social influence and the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be demonstrated. Moreover, in study 2, almost all of our hypotheses were in line with the data. The proposed serial mediation model provides evidence for the validity of both the TRA and the UTAUT. Moreover, we were able to observe the proposed similarity effect as a positive social influence led to a higher credibility of PRWs in both studies. In this context, the TIE can serve as a profound theoretical framework in explaining the relationships between the constructs. By categorizing health care services as credence goods, this theoretical approach can make valuable contributions in explaining the impact of social influence on the credibility of PRWs as well as on the performance expectancy and behavioral intention to use PRWs. The most obvious finding to emerge from both studies is that social influence seems to exert an impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. However, in particular, we showed that, under certain conditions, this impact seems not to be exerted directly but indirectly through credibility and performance expectancy. To sum up, the evidence from both studies suggests that social influence could increase the use rates of PRWs enormously. Bearing in mind that SMIs develop a kind of parasocial relationship with their followers [125,126], it might be conceivable that social influence is not just limited to friends and family but could also be exerted by SMIs in the domain of PRW use. From a marketing perspective, PRW providers could think of collaborating with SMIs to boost use of PRWs in the future. With the onset of the ongoing pandemic, and especially in times of lockdowns and reduced personal contacts, SMIs have increasingly taken on the role of a kind of “homefluencers” [127], especially with regard to specific health-related issues such as vaccination in general [128]. Thus, the follower base of SMIs could also be used as a target group of electronic word of mouth to increase use of PRWs in the long run. However, special attention should be paid to choosing the most suitable SMI according to the fit between their personality, their follower base, and the specific PRW provider, as it has been widely investigated in commercial realms such as brand relationships [129-131]. Increased use of PRWs could be advantageous not only for PRW providers but also for patients and physicians. Higher PRW use could lead to a higher average number of ratings per physician, which could increase their representativeness [132]. From the physicians’ perspective, PRWs enable them to achieve a positive external impact and learn from feedback and offer them avenues to improve their service quality [133].

 Directions for Future Research

This study investigated not only whether social influence exerts an impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs but also how this influence emerges. However, when focusing on this crucial independent variable, several other possible influencing variables could be interesting as well. These include, in line with the UTAUT [25], for example, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, or habit [24,26,49,134]. In future investigations, it might be possible to use additional moderator variables (eg, the area where people live [rural vs urban]). To sum up, further elaboration on the influencing chain to explain behavioral intention to use PRWs by including other variables of interest could be an important issue for future research.

Questionnaire for study 1.

Questionnaire for study 2.

Example equation and attention check.

Graphical data cleansing description.

 Abbreviations PRW

physician rating website

 SMI

social media influencer

 TAM

technology acceptance model

 TIE

theory of information economics

 TPB

theory of planned behavior

 TRA

theory of reasoned action

 UTAUT

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

The authors reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this paper.

BG contributed to study design, data collection, data analysis, and writing of the paper. SB contributed to conceptualization, study design, and data collection and critically reviewed the paper. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

None declared.

 Emmert M McLennan S One decade of online patient feedback: longitudinal analysis of data from a German physician rating website J Med Internet Res 2021 07 26 23 7 e24229 10.2196/24229 34309579 v23i7e24229 PMC8367114 Bäumer F Kersting J Kuršelis V Geierhos M Rate your physician: findings from a Lithuanian physician rating website Information and Software Technologies 2018 Cham Springer Okike K Peter-Bibb TK Xie KC Okike ON Association between physician online rating and quality of care J Med Internet Res 2016 12 13 18 12 e324 10.2196/jmir.6612 27965191 v18i12e324 PMC5192234 McLennan S Strech D Kahrass H Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study BMC Health Serv Res 2018 08 29 18 1 670 10.1186/s12913-018-3492-0 30157842 10.1186/s12913-018-3492-0 PMC6116491 Lagu T Metayer K Moran M Ortiz L Priya A Goff SL Lindenauer PK Website characteristics and physician reviews on commercial physician-rating websites JAMA 2017 02 21 317 7 766 8 10.1001/jama.2016.18553 28241346 2603919 PMC5330184 Hill RJ Fishbein M Ajzen I Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research Contemporary Sociol 1977 03 6 2 244 10.2307/2065853 Ajzen I From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior Action Control 1985 Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Ajzen I Fishbein M Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior 1980 Hoboken, New Jersey, United States Prentice-Hall Fishbein M A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications Nebr Symp Motiv 1980 27 65 116 7242751 Sheppard BH Hartwick J Warshaw PR The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research J Consum Res 1988 12 15 3 325 10.1086/209170 Ajzen I The theory of planned behavior Organizational Behav Human Decision Process 1991 12 50 2 179 211 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen I Madden TJ Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control J Experimental Social Psychol 1986 9 22 5 453 74 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 Madden TJ Ellen PS Ajzen I A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2016 07 02 18 1 3 9 10.1177/0146167292181001 Ajzen I The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections Psychol Health 2011 09 26 9 1113 27 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995 21929476 King WR He J A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model Inform Manag 2006 9 43 6 740 55 10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 Surendran P Technology acceptance model: a survey of literature Int J Bus Social Res 2012 2 4 10.18533/ijbsr.v2i4.161 Marangunić N Granić A Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013 Univ Access Inf Soc 2014 2 16 14 1 81 95 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 Mathieson K Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior Inform Syst Res 1991 09 2 3 173 91 10.1287/isre.2.3.173 Davis F A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1986 2022-02-16 https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192 Davis FD User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts Int J Man Mach Stud 1993 3 38 3 475 87 10.1006/imms.1993.1022 Davis FD Bagozzi RP Warshaw PR User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models Manag Sci 1989 08 35 8 982 1003 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 Venkatesh V Davis FD A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies Management Science 2000 02 46 2 186 204 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Venkatesh V Bala H Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions Decision Sci 2008 05 39 2 273 315 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x Venkatesh V Zhang X Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: U.S. vs. China J Global Inform Technol Manag 2014 09 09 13 1 5 27 10.1080/1097198X.2010.10856507 Venkatesh V Morris MG Davis GB Davis FD User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view MIS Q 2003 27 3 425 10.2307/30036540 Venkatesh V Thong JJY Xu X Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology MIS Q 2012 36 1 157 10.2307/41410412 Chang A UTAUT and UTAUT 2: a review and agenda for future research The Winners 2012 09 28 13 2 10 10.21512/tw.v13i2.656 Venkatesh V Thong J Xu X Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead J Assoc Inf Syst 2016 05 17 5 328 76 10.17705/1jais.00428 Williams MD Rana NP Dwivedi YK The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review J Ent Inform Manag 2015 04 13 28 3 443 88 10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088 Darby MR Karni E Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud J Law Econ 1973 04 16 1 67 88 10.1086/466756 Simons H Berkowitz N Moyer R Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: a review and a theory Psychol Bulletin 1970 01 73 1 1 16 10.1037/h0028429 Lantzy S Anderson D Can consumers use online reviews to avoid unsuitable doctors? Evidence from ratemds.Com and the federation of state medical boards Decision Sci 2019 06 26 51 4 962 84 10.1111/deci.12398 Dagger TS Sweeney JC Johnson LW A hierarchical model of health service quality J Service Res 2016 06 29 10 2 123 42 10.1177/1094670507309594 Gershoff AD Broniarczyk SM West PM Recommendation or evaluation? Task sensitivity in information source selection J Consum Res 2001 12 01 28 3 418 38 10.1086/323730 Ketelaar PE Willemsen LM Sleven L Kerkhof P The good, the bad, and the expert: how consumer expertise affects review valence effects on purchase intentions in online product reviews J Comput Mediat Comm 2015 11 27 20 6 649 66 10.1111/jcc4.12139 Goldstein NJ Cialdini RB Griskevicius V A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels J Consum Res 2008 10 01 35 3 472 82 10.1086/586910 Nikou SA Economides AA Mobile-based assessment: investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use Comput Educ 2017 06 109 56 73 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005 Shen AX Cheung CM Lee MK Chen H How social influence affects we-intention to use instant messaging: the moderating effect of usage experience Inf Syst Front 2009 6 24 13 2 157 69 10.1007/s10796-009-9193-9 Chaouali W Ben Yahia I Souiden N The interplay of counter-conformity motivation, social influence, and trust in customers' intention to adopt internet banking services: the case of an emerging country J Retailing Consum Serv 2016 01 28 209 18 10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.10.007 Boontarig W Chutimaskul W Chongsuphajaisiddhi V Papasratorn B Factors influencing the Thai elderly intention to use smartphone for e-Health services Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research 2012 2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research Jun 24-27, 2012 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 10.1109/shuser.2012.6268881 Wang N Sun Y Social influence or personal preference? Examining the determinants of usage intention across social media with different sociability Inform Develop 2016 07 09 32 5 1442 56 10.1177/0266666915603224 Abdul Razak FZ Abu Bakar A Abdullah W How perceived effort expectancy and social influence affects continuance of intention to use e-government. A study of a Malaysian government service Electron Gov 2017 13 1 1 10.1504/eg.2017.10004264 Bakar AA Razak F The role of facilitating condition and social influence towards continuance intention to use elearning Intl J Technical Res Appl 2014 2 1 12 4 Cokins G Oncioiu I Türkeș MC Topor DI Căpuşneanu S Paștiu CA Deliu D Solovăstru AN Intention to use accounting platforms in Romania: a quantitative study on sustainability and social influence Sustainability 2020 07 30 12 15 6127 10.3390/su12156127 Krueger N Carsrud A Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour Entrepreneurship Regional Develop 1993 01 5 4 315 30 10.1080/08985629300000020 Tonglet M Phillips P Read A Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK Resources Conservation Recycling 2004 6 41 3 191 214 10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001 Hardeman W Johnston M Johnston D Bonetti D Wareham N Kinmonth A Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions: a systematic review Psychol Health 2002 01 17 2 123 58 10.1080/08870440290013644a Anderson J Schwager P SME adoption of wireless LAN technology: applying the UTAUT model Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems (SAIS) 2004 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems (SAIS) Feb. 27-28, 2004 Savannah GA Hoogenbosch B Postma J de Man-van Ginkel JM Tiemessen NA van Delden JJ van Os-Medendorp H Use and the users of a patient portal: cross-sectional study J Med Internet Res 2018 09 17 20 9 e262 10.2196/jmir.9418 30224334 v20i9e262 PMC6231740 Kim Y Srivastava J Impact of social influence in e-commerce decision making Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic commerce 2007 ICEC07: Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce Aug 19 - 22, 2007 Minneapolis MN USA 10.1145/1282100.1282157 Wolters R Wensing M Van Weel GC Van Der Wilt RP Grol RP Lower urinary tract symptoms: social influence is more important than symptoms in seeking medical care BJU Int 2002 90 7 655 61 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02996.x McGlone TA Butler ES McGlone VL Factors influencing consumers' selection of a primary care physician Health Mark Q 2008 09 25 19 3 21 37 10.1300/j026v19n03_03 Shah J Dickinson C Establishing which factors patients value when selecting urology outpatient care Br J Med Surg Urol 2010 01 01 3 1 25 9 10.1016/j.bjmsu.2009.10.003 Baron RM Kenny DA The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations J Personal Soc Psychol 1986 51 6 1173 82 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Zhao X Lynch JG Chen Q Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis J Consum Res 2010 08 01 37 2 197 206 10.1086/651257 O’keefe D Persuasion The International Encyclopedia of Communication 2012 Hoboken, New Jersey Wiley Erdem T Swait J Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon J Consum Psychol 1998 1 7 2 131 57 10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_02 Metzger M Flanagin A Medders R Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online J Commun 2010 60 3 413 39 Gass R Seiter J Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining 2011 Boston, Massachusetts, United States Allyn & Bacon Wang Y Wang Y Lin H Tang T Determinants of user acceptance of internet banking: an empirical study Int J Serv Ind Manag 2003 14 5 501 19 Luarn P Lin H Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking Comput Human Behav 2005 11 21 6 873 91 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003 Broman Toft M Schuitema G Thøgersen J Responsible technology acceptance: model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology Applied Energy 2014 12 134 392 400 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.048 Haas C Wearden S E-credibility: building common ground in web environments L1 Educ Stud Language Literature 2003 169 84 Jensen ML Averbeck JM Zhang Z Wright KB Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: a language expectancy perspective J Manag Inform Syst 2014 12 08 30 1 293 324 10.2753/mis0742-1222300109 Chen Y Shang R Li M The effects of perceived relevance of travel blogs’ content on the behavioral intention to visit a tourist destination Comput Human Behav 2014 1 30 787 99 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.019 Fedorko I Bačik R Gavurova B Effort expectancy and social influence factors as main determinants of performance expectancy using electronic banking Banks Bank Syst 2021 04 28 16 2 27 37 10.21511/bbs.16(2).2021.03 Im I Hong S Kang MS An international comparison of technology adoption Inform Manag 2011 1 48 1 1 8 10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001 Carlsson C Carlsson J Hyvonen K Puhakainen J Walden P Adoption of mobile devices/services-searching for answers with the UTAUT Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06) 2006 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06) Jan 04-07, 2006 Kauai, HI, USA 10.1109/hicss.2006.38 Marchewka J Kostiwa K An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software Commun IIMA 2007 7 10 Duarte P Pinho JC A mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile health adoption J Bus Res 2019 09 102 140 50 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.022 Macedo IM Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: an empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2 Comput Human Behav 2017 10 75 935 48 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.013 Owusu Kwateng K Osei Atiemo KA Appiah C Acceptance and use of mobile banking: an application of UTAUT2 J Enterp Inform Manag 2019 02 11 32 1 118 51 10.1108/jeim-03-2018-0055 Yu C Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile bankingmpirical evidence from the UTAUT model J Electron Commer Res J 2012 13 2 104 Norman C eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept J Med Internet Res 2011 12 23 13 4 e125 10.2196/jmir.2035 22193243 v13i4e125 PMC3278111 Noblin AM Wan TT Fottler M The impact of health literacy on a patient's decision to adopt a personal health record Perspect Health Inf Manag 2012 9 1 13 23209454 PMC3510648 Cajita MI Hodgson NA Budhathoki C Han H Intention to use mHealth in older adults with heart failure J Cardiovasc Nurs 2017 32 6 E1 7 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000401 28248747 PMC5573659 Cho YI Lee SD Arozullah AM Crittenden KS Effects of health literacy on health status and health service utilization amongst the elderly Soc Sci Med 2008 04 66 8 1809 16 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.003 18295949 S0277-9536(08)00016-6 Terlutter R Bidmon S Röttl J Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites J Med Internet Res 2014 03 31 16 3 e97 10.2196/jmir.3145 24686918 v16i3e97 PMC4004145 Schulz PJ Rothenfluh F Influence of health literacy on effects of patient rating websites: survey study using a hypothetical situation and fictitious doctors J Med Internet Res 2020 04 06 22 4 e14134 10.2196/14134 32250275 v22i4e14134 PMC7171560 Chaudhary V Sharma D Kalro A Consumer scepticism: a systematic review of literature Mark Rev 2019 12 31 19 3 189 212 10.1362/146934719X15774562877683 Ahmad F Guzmán F Consumer skepticism about online reviews and their decision-making process: the role of review self-efficacy and regulatory focus J Consum Mark 2021 08 11 38 5 587 600 10.1108/jcm-09-2020-4119 Sher PJ Lee S Consumer skepticism and online reviews: an elaboration likelihood model perspective Soc Behav Pers 2009 02 01 37 1 137 43 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.137 Reimer T Benkenstein M When good WOM hurts and bad WOM gains: the effect of untrustworthy online reviews J Bus Res 2016 12 69 12 5993 6001 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.014 Bidmon S Terlutter R Gender differences in searching for health information on the internet and the virtual patient-physician relationship in Germany: exploratory results on how men and women differ and why J Med Internet Res 2015 06 22 17 6 e156 10.2196/jmir.4127 26099325 v17i6e156 PMC4526954 Emmert M Meier F Pisch F Sander U Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study J Med Internet Res 2013 08 28 15 8 e187 10.2196/jmir.2702 23985220 v15i8e187 PMC3758064 Liff JM Chow W Greenberg RS Rural–urban differences in stage at diagnosis. Possible relationship to cancer screening Cancer 1991 03 01 67 5 1454 9 10.1002/1097-0142(19910301)67:5<1454::aid-cncr2820670533>3.0.co;2-k Ohanian R Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness J Advert 1990 10 19 3 39 52 10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191 Wilson EV Lankton NK Modeling patients' acceptance of provider-delivered e-health J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004 11 4 241 8 10.1197/jamia.M1475 15064290 M1475 PMC436070 Hulland J Baumgartner H Smith KM Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles J Acad Mark Sci 2017 4 10 46 1 92 108 10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y MacKenzie S Podsakoff P Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies J Retail 2012 12 88 4 542 55 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 Seber G Lee A Linear Regression Analysis, Second Edition 2003 Hoboken, New Jersey, United States Wiley Hayes A Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-Based Approach 2022 New York, United States Guilford Publications Hayes A Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach (3rd Edition) 2022 New York The Guilford Press Hayes AF An index and test of linear moderated mediation Multivariate Behav Res 2015 50 1 1 22 10.1080/00273171.2014.962683 26609740 Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2013 Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England, UK Taylor & Francis Soellner R Huber S Reder M The concept of eHealth literacy and its measurement J Media Psychol 2014 01 26 1 29 38 10.1027/1864-1105/a000104 Norman CD Skinner HA eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale J Med Internet Res 2006 11 14 8 4 e27 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27 17213046 v8i4e27 PMC1794004 Skarmeas D Leonidou CN When consumers doubt, watch out! the role of CSR skepticism J Bus Res 2013 10 66 10 1831 8 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004 Storm V Reinwand DA Wienert J Tan S Lippke S The mediating role of perceived social support between physical activity habit strength and depressive symptoms in people seeking to decrease their cardiovascular risk: cross-sectional study JMIR Ment Health 2018 11 14 5 4 e11124 10.2196/11124 30429112 v5i4e11124 PMC6300041 Roberts JA David ME Improving predictions of COVID-19 preventive behavior: development of a sequential mediation model J Med Internet Res 2021 03 17 23 3 e23218 10.2196/23218 33651707 v23i3e23218 PMC7971155 Kerr B D'Angelo JD Diaz-Caballero A Moreno MA College student problematic internet use and digital communication medium used with parents: cross-sectional study JMIR Pediatr Parent 2020 04 23 3 1 e17165 10.2196/17165 32324140 v3i1e17165 PMC7206513 Guan Y Duan W The mediating role of visual stimuli from media use at bedtime on psychological distress and fatigue in college students: cross-sectional study JMIR Ment Health 2020 03 16 7 3 e11609 10.2196/11609 32175912 v7i3e11609 PMC7105928 Audrain-Pontevia A Menvielle L Ertz M Effects of three antecedents of patient compliance for users of peer-to-peer online health communities: cross-sectional study J Med Internet Res 2019 11 11 21 11 e14006 10.2196/14006 31710295 v21i11e14006 PMC6878099 Adebesin F Mwalugha R The mediating role of organizational reputation and trust in the intention to use wearable health devices: cross-country study JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 06 09 8 6 e16721 10.2196/16721 32348260 v8i6e16721 PMC7312256 Liu S Perdew M Lithopoulos A Rhodes RE The feasibility of using Instagram data to predict exercise identity and physical activity levels: cross-sectional observational study J Med Internet Res 2021 04 19 23 4 e20954 10.2196/20954 33871380 v23i4e20954 PMC8094017 Duarte J Pinto-Gouveia J Cruz B Relationships between nurses' empathy, self-compassion and dimensions of professional quality of life: a cross-sectional study Int J Nurs Stud 2016 08 60 1 11 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.02.015 27297364 S0020-7489(16)00083-3 Kristofferzon M Engström M Nilsson A Coping mediates the relationship between sense of coherence and mental quality of life in patients with chronic illness: a cross-sectional study Qual Life Res 2018 07 27 7 1855 63 10.1007/s11136-018-1845-0 29623597 10.1007/s11136-018-1845-0 PMC5997720 Dahlkvist E Hartig T Nilsson A Högberg H Skovdahl K Engström M Garden greenery and the health of older people in residential care facilities: a multi-level cross-sectional study J Adv Nurs 2016 09 72 9 2065 76 10.1111/jan.12968 27028976 Khan MN Mahmood A A distinctive approach to obtain higher page rank through search engine optimization Sādhanā 2018 3 22 43 3 10.1007/s12046-018-0812-3 Podsakoff PM MacKenzie SB Lee J Podsakoff NP Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies J Appl Psychol 2003 10 88 5 879 903 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 14516251 2003-08045-010 Chang S van Witteloostuijn A Eden L From the editors: common method variance in international business research J Int Bus Stud 2010 2 8 41 2 178 84 10.1057/jibs.2009.88 Aguinis H Villamor I Ramani R MTurk research: review and recommendations J Manag 2020 11 19 47 4 823 37 10.1177/0149206320969787 Oppenheimer DM Meyvis T Davidenko N Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power J Exp Soc Psychol 2009 07 45 4 867 72 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 Kung FY Kwok N Brown DJ Are attention check questions a threat to scale validity? Applied Psychol 2017 08 24 67 2 264 83 10.1111/apps.12108 VanderWeele TJ Vansteelandt S Mediation analysis with multiple mediators Epidemiol Methods 2014 01 2 1 95 115 10.1515/em-2012-0010 25580377 PMC4287269 Steen J Loeys T Moerkerke B Vansteelandt S Flexible mediation analysis with multiple mediators Am J Epidemiol 2017 07 15 186 2 184 93 10.1093/aje/kwx051 28472328 3791460 Daniel RM De Stavola BL Cousens SN Vansteelandt S Causal mediation analysis with multiple mediators Biometrics 2015 03 28 71 1 1 14 10.1111/biom.12248 25351114 PMC4402024 Gotch C Hall * T Understanding nature‐related behaviors among children through a theory of reasoned action approach Environ Educ Res 2004 05 10 2 157 77 10.1080/13504620242000198159 Fishbein M A reasoned action approach to health promotion Med Decis Making 2008 28 6 834 44 10.1177/0272989X08326092 19015289 0272989X08326092 PMC2603050 Ajzen I Albarracin D Hornik R Prediction and Change of Health Behavior Applying the Reasoned Action Approach 2007 Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England, UK Taylor & Francis Lada S Tanakinjal G Amin H Predicting intention to choose halal products using theory of reasoned action Int J Islam Middle East Financ Manag 2009 66 76 Buttle F Bok B Hotel marketing strategy and the theory of reasoned action Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 1996 5 10 van den Bos K Lind EA Bommelé J VandeVondele SD Reminders of behavioral disinhibition increase public conformity in the Asch paradigm and behavioral affiliation with ingroup members Front Psychol 2015 6 837 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00837 26175695 PMC4483522 Dunning D Van Boven L Loewenstein G Egocentric empathy gaps in social interaction and exchange Advances in Group Processes 2001 Bingley, United Kingdom Emerald Group Publishing Limited Hwang K Zhang Q Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge Comput Human Behav 2018 10 87 155 73 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.029 Yuan S Lou C How social media influencers foster relationships with followers: the roles of source credibility and fairness in parasocial relationship and product interest J Interact Advert 2020 07 13 20 2 133 47 10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514 R. Taylor C Advertising and COVID-19 Int J Advert 2020 06 09 39 5 587 9 10.1080/02650487.2020.1774131 Lookadoo K Hubbard C Nisbett G Wong N We’re all in this together: celebrity influencer disclosures about COVID-19 Atl J Commun 2021 07 30 30 4 397 418 10.1080/15456870.2021.1936526 Janssen L Schouten A Croes E Influencer advertising on Instagram: product-influencer fit and number of followers affect advertising outcomes and influencer evaluations via credibility and identification Intl J Advert 2021 10 28 41 1 101 27 10.1080/02650487.2021.1994205 Schouten A Janssen L Verspaget M Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: the role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit Int J Advert 2019 07 02 39 2 258 81 10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898 Shan Y Chen K Lin J When social media influencers endorse brands: the effects of self-influencer congruence, parasocial identification, and perceived endorser motive Intl J Advert 2019 10 18 39 5 590 610 10.1080/02650487.2019.1678322 Bidmon S Terlutter R Röttl J What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire J Med Internet Res 2014 06 11 16 6 e148 10.2196/jmir.3122 24918859 v16i6e148 PMC4071227 Bidmon S Elshiewy O Terlutter R Boztug Y What patients value in physicians: analyzing drivers of patient satisfaction using physician-rating website data J Med Internet Res 2020 02 03 22 2 e13830 10.2196/13830 32012063 v22i2e13830 PMC7055794 Tavares J Oliveira T Electronic health record patient portal adoption by health care consumers: an acceptance model and survey J Med Internet Res 2016 03 02 18 3 e49 10.2196/jmir.5069 26935646 v18i3e49 PMC4795321