IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v350y2024ics0277953624003903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A typology of evaluative health platforms: Commercial interests and their implications for patient voice

Author

Listed:
  • Reilley, Jacob
  • Pflueger, Dane
  • Huber, Christian

Abstract

Interactions in the healthcare system today involve an important new set of actors: evaluative health platforms (EHPs). These platforms are not neutral intermediaries, but active moderators of how patients express opinions, choose providers, and consume health-related information. This paper adds to our understanding of the varied and evolving commercial interests of EHPs and the implications these have for patient voice. We analyze 71 platforms in the USA, UK, and Germany and identify five ideal types: subscribers, analyzers, advertisers, regulators, and scammers. Each platform type enacts a unique competitive strategy through an evaluative infrastructure which constrains but also generates possibilities for patient voice. Based on our typology, we develop three contributions. First, we nuance universalizing claims about the consequences of platform capitalism by specifying the diverse strategies underpinning competition between EHPs in different countries, and showing how each strategy leads evaluative infrastructures to develop in ways that impact patient voice. Second, we show how patients can navigate the challenges of a complex EHP space by exercising their ability to choose between platforms. Finally, we outline the conditions platforms need to fulfil to become empowering. Overall, this study highlights the varied and complex relationship between platform business models and user voice, which exists not only in healthcare, but also in many other fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Reilley, Jacob & Pflueger, Dane & Huber, Christian, 2024. "A typology of evaluative health platforms: Commercial interests and their implications for patient voice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:350:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624003903
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624003903
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116946?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fox, N.J. & Ward, K.J. & O'Rourke, A.J., 2005. "The 'expert patient': empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1299-1309, March.
    2. Colignon, Richard & Covaleski, Mark, 1991. "A Weberian framework in the study of accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 141-157.
    3. Petrakaki, Dimitra & Hilberg, Eva & Waring, Justin, 2021. "The Cultivation of Digital Health Citizenship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    4. Smailhodzic, Edin & Boonstra, Albert & Langley, David J., 2021. "Social media enabled interactions in healthcare: Towards a taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. Kitchener, Martin & Caronna, Carol A. & Shortell, Stephen M., 2005. "From the doctor's workshop to the iron cage? Evolving modes of physician control in US health systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1311-1322, March.
    6. Broer, Tineke, 2022. "The Googlization of Health: Invasiveness and corporate responsibility in media discourses on Facebook's algorithmic programme for suicide prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    7. Marent, Benjamin & Henwood, Flis & Darking, Mary, 2018. "Ambivalence in digital health: Co-designing an mHealth platform for HIV care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 133-141.
    8. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    9. Quirk, Alan & Lelliott, Paul & Seale, Clive, 2006. "The permeable institution: An ethnographic study of three acute psychiatric wards in London," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2105-2117, October.
    10. repec:eme:aaaj00:aaaj-09-2017-3156 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Isaksson Rø, Karin & Veggeland, Frode & Aasland, Olaf G., 2016. "Peer counselling for doctors in Norway: A qualitative study of the relationship between support and surveillance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 193-200.
    12. Mazanderani, Fadhila & Kirkpatrick, Susan F. & Ziebland, Sue & Locock, Louise & Powell, John, 2021. "Caring for care: Online feedback in the context of public healthcare services," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    13. Adams, Samantha A., 2011. "Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: The reflexive patient and "share-your-experience" websites," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1069-1076, April.
    14. Emma McDaid & Christina Boedker & Clinton Free, 2019. "Close encounters and the illusion of accountability in the sharing economy," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(5), pages 1437-1466, August.
    15. Arendt, Florian & Forrai, Michaela & Findl, Oliver, 2020. "Dealing with negative reviews on physician-rating websites: An experimental test of how physicians can prevent reputational damage via effective response strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    16. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    17. Pflueger, Dane, 2016. "Knowing patients: The customer survey and the changing margins of accounting in healthcare," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 17-33.
    18. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    19. Kornberger, Martin & Pflueger, Dane & Mouritsen, Jan, 2017. "Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 79-95.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Menon, Alka V., 2017. "Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1-8.
    2. McDaid, Emma & Andon, Paul & Free, Clinton, 2023. "Algorithmic management and the politics of demand: Control and resistance at Uber," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Wai Fong Chua, 2022. "Matters of concern and engaged research," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4615-4627, December.
    4. Alharthi, Amal & Cortese, Corinne & Moerman, Lee & Tanima, Farzana, 2022. "Surveillance capitalism in the middle east retail sector," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Knudsen, Dan-Richard, 2020. "Elusive boundaries, power relations, and knowledge production: A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Leopold Ringel & Jelena Brankovic & Tobias Werron, 2020. "The Organizational Engine of Rankings: Connecting “New” and “Old” Institutionalism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 36-47.
    7. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Power, Michael, 2021. "Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: organizations and the logic of the audit trail," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100243, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Andrew, Jane & Baker, Max, 2020. "The radical potential of leaks in the shadow accounting project: The case of US oil interests in Nigeria," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Leoni, Giulia & Parker, Lee D., 2019. "Governance and control of sharing economy platforms: Hosting on Airbnb," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1q24hpq2919to8ct061g8p33kn is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Ziewitz, Malte, 2017. "Experience in action: Moderating care in web-based patient feedback," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 99-108.
    14. Martimianakis, Maria Athina (Tina) & Hafferty, Frederic W., 2013. "The world as the new local clinic: A critical analysis of three discourses of global medical competency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 31-38.
    15. Isabelle Bouty & Marie-Léandre Gomez & Carole Drucker-Godard, 2013. "Maintaining an Institution : The Institutional Work of Michelin in Haute Cuisine around the World," Working Papers hal-00782455, HAL.
    16. Prior, Lindsay & Evans, Meirion R. & Prout, Hayley, 2011. "Talking about colds and flu: The lay diagnosis of two common illnesses among older British people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 922-928, September.
    17. Philippe Batifoulier & John Latsis & Jacques Merchiers, 2010. "Les priorités de la prise en charge financière des soins. Une approche par la philosophie du besoin," EconomiX Working Papers 2010-2, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/1q24hpq2919to8ct061g8p33kn is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Josef Zelenka & Tracy Azubuike & Martina Pásková, 2021. "Trust Model for Online Reviews of Tourism Services and Evaluation of Destinations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    21. Brüggemann, Jelmer & Persson, Alma & Wijma, Barbro, 2019. "Understanding and preventing situations of abuse in health care – Navigation work in a Swedish palliative care setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 52-58.
    22. Uddin, Shahzad, 2009. "Rationalities, domination and accounting control: A case study from a traditional society," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 782-794.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:350:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624003903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.