IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i7p1183-d219257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Status Quo of Professional–Patient Relations in the Internet Era: Bibliometric and Co-Word Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Zekun Wang

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Zhaohua Deng

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Xiang Wu

    (School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

Abstract

Background : Incidents of violence against medical staff have increased in intensity, showing the deteriorating relationship between doctors and patients in China over the past few years. In addition, professional–patient relations have been significantly affected in the Internet era in China, which has attracted great attention from many scholars. This study aims to analyze the research status of professional–patient relations in the Internet era in China and further reveal its research pattern and trends. Methods : This study collected journal articles published during the past 21 years from the Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform. Then, bibliometric analysis was carried out, including publication growth, core author and collaborative degree, highly cited papers, journal distribution, and institution distribution analyses. We also analyzed the subject heading–source literature matrix and co-occurrence matrix of keywords through hierarchical cluster, social network, and strategic diagram analyses. Results : The number of articles has continually risen since 1998, which follows the growth law of literature. Furthermore, the distribution of these studies obeys Bradford’s law of scattering, and mainly concentrates on the fields of medicine and health technology. The distribution of high-frequency keywords follows Zipf’s law. Conclusions : We identified eight focal research directions, namely: website building (especially for professional–patient interaction), telemedicine, professional–patient communication and network public opinion, professional–patient contradiction and health education, new media, follow-up interaction platform, healthcare reform and computer network, and medical ethics.

Suggested Citation

  • Zekun Wang & Zhaohua Deng & Xiang Wu, 2019. "Status Quo of Professional–Patient Relations in the Internet Era: Bibliometric and Co-Word Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1183-:d:219257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1183/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1183/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    2. Chunmei Gan & Weijun Wang, 2015. "Research characteristics and status on social media in China: A bibliometric and co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1167-1182, November.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    4. Scott Deerwester & Susan T. Dumais & George W. Furnas & Thomas K. Landauer & Richard Harshman, 1990. "Indexing by latent semantic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 391-407, September.
    5. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    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. Jake R. Nelson & Tony H. Grubesic, 2018. "Environmental Justice: A Panoptic Overview Using Scientometrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Andrej Kastrin & Dimitar Hristovski, 2021. "Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1415-1451, February.
    3. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    4. Giovanni Anania & Annarosa Caruso, 2013. "Two simple new bibliometric indexes to better evaluate research in disciplines where publications typically receive less citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 617-631, August.
    5. Lucie Sperkova, 2018. "Review of Latent Dirichlet Allocation Methods Usable in Voice of Customer Analysis," Acta Informatica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2018(2), pages 152-165.
    6. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.
    7. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    8. Yue Guiling & Siti Aisyah Panatik & Mohammad Saipol Mohd Sukor & Noraini Rusbadrol & Li Cunlin, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Organizational Citizenship Behavior From 2000 to 2019," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    9. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    10. Marianne Hörlesberger & Ivana Roche & Dominique Besagni & Thomas Scherngell & Claire François & Pascal Cuxac & Edgar Schiebel & Michel Zitt & Dirk Holste, 2013. "A concept for inferring ‘frontier research’ in grant proposals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 129-148, November.
    11. Rico-Peña, Juan Jesús & Arguedas-Sanz, Raquel & López-Martin, Carmen, 2023. "Models used to characterise blockchain features. A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    12. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Carlos Romá-Mateo & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, 2019. "Overview of trends in global epigenetic research (2009–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1545-1574, June.
    13. Rosenstreich, Daniela & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2009. "Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 227-239.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    15. Louise Wiles & Timothy Olds & Marie Williams, 2013. "Twenty-five years of Australian nursing and allied health professional journals: bibliometric analysis from 1985 through 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 359-378, January.
    16. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    17. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    18. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Irina Wedel & Michael Palk & Stefan Voß, 2022. "A Bilingual Comparison of Sentiment and Topics for a Product Event on Twitter," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1635-1646, October.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1183-:d:219257. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.