IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v72y2011i7p1069-1076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: The reflexive patient and "share-your-experience" websites

Author

Listed:
  • Adams, Samantha A.

Abstract

In countries where the notion of "reflexive patients" dominates the health policy landscape, patients are increasingly encouraged to publicize their personal experiences with health services provision by reviewing hospitals and professionals on the web. The number of websites where patients can review one or more aspects of their care (and read reviews posted by others) is growing. These sites are an example of the practice of crowdsourcing, where applications that facilitate user-generated content solicit feedback from a given public; site administrators then use this feedback for product development, quality improvement and policy change. The research presented here examines such developments in the context of ongoing discussions about reflexive consumerism and increased transparency in healthcare. It draws on data from a three-year study of share-your-experience sites in the US, UK, and the Netherlands. Data is taken primarily from a discourse analysis of four of the six sites under study, including patient reviews of institutions and professionals (n = 450). Supplementary data from interviews with stakeholders related to the Dutch sites (n = 15) is also used. This is the first known study of multiple share-your-experience websites in different countries. It shows that monitoring as "reflexive" behavior is not automatic, but is encouraged by website creators who, hoping to use the posts for other purposes, act as mediators between patients and other healthcare stakeholders. It further argues that patients demonstrate more reflexivity than some stakeholders realize, although not necessarily in the way that Giddens proposed. It concludes with the argument that the focus on reflexivity in healthcare means that not only institutions must be more transparent about their performance; patients are expected to be more transparent about their choices, as well.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:7:p:1069-1076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(11)00075-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Balta, Maria & Valsecchi, Raffaella & Papadopoulos, Thanos & Bourne, Dorota Joanna, 2021. "Digitalization and co-creation of healthcare value: A case study in Occupational Health," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Ziewitz, Malte, 2017. "Experience in action: Moderating care in web-based patient feedback," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 99-108.
    4. Petrakaki, Dimitra & Hilberg, Eva & Waring, Justin, 2018. "Between empowerment and self-discipline: Governing patients' conduct through technological self-care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 146-153.
    5. Mary S. Mangai & Michiel S. Vries, 2019. "You Just Have to Ask Coproduction of Primary Healthcare in Ghana and Nigeria," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 273-291, June.
    6. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.
    7. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Chandwani, Rajesh & Edacherian, Saneesh & Sud, Mukesh, 2019. "Whose Empowerment? National Digital Infrastructure and India’s Healthcare sector," IIMA Working Papers WP 2019-02-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    4. Bernardi, Roberta & Wu, Philip F., 2022. "Online health communities and the patient-doctor relationship: An institutional logics perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    5. Brothers, Sarah, 2019. "A good “doctor” is hard to find: Assessing uncredentialed expertise in assisted injection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Scavarda, Alice & Ariel Cascio, M., 2022. "Embracing and rejecting the medicalization of autism in Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    7. Read, John, 2008. "Schizophrenia, drug companies and the internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 99-109, January.
    8. Kuchinskaya, Olga & Parker, Lisa S., 2018. "‘Recurrent losers unite’: Online forums, evidence-based activism, and pregnancy loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 74-80.
    9. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    10. Dedding, Christine & van Doorn, Roesja & Winkler, Lex & Reis, Ria, 2011. "How will e-health affect patient participation in the clinic? A review of e-health studies and the current evidence for changes in the relationship between medical professionals and patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 49-53, January.
    11. Salant, Talya & Santry, Heena P., 2006. "Internet marketing of bariatric surgery: Contemporary trends in the medicalization of obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2445-2457, May.
    12. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Will, Catherine M. & Weiner, Kate, 2015. "The drugs don't sell: DIY heart health and the over-the-counter statin experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 280-288.
    15. McDonald, Ruth & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Sanders, Caroline & Ashcroft, Darren, 2010. "Professional status in a changing world: The case of medicines use reviews in English community pharmacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 451-458, August.
    16. Thomas, Felicity & Aggleton, Peter & Anderson, Jane, 2010. "'Experts', 'partners' and 'fools': Exploring agency in HIV treatment seeking among African migrants in London," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 736-743, March.
    17. Frank, Vibeke Asmussen & Bjerge, Bagga, 2011. "Empowerment in drug treatment: Dilemmas in implementing policy in welfare institutions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 201-208, July.
    18. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    19. Lemire, Marc & Sicotte, Claude & Paré, Guy, 2008. "Internet use and the logics of personal empowerment in health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 130-140, October.
    20. 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).

    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:72:y:2011:i:7:p:1069-1076. 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.