scholarly journals Teenage Uploaders on YouTube: Networked Public Expectancies, Online Feedback Preference, and Received On-Platform Feedback

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 315-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cédric Courtois ◽  
Peter Mechant ◽  
Lieven De Marez
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Preference ◽  
Online Feedback

Customer Online Feedback with an Identity Versus No Identity: The Influence on Review Comments

2021 ◽  
pp. 109634802098888
Author(s):  
Dan Jin ◽  
Robin B. DiPietro ◽  
Nicholas M. Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
Online Community ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Purchasing Behavior ◽  
Mediation Effects ◽  
Driven Systems ◽  
Customer Reviews ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Online Feedback ◽  
The Relationship

As customers’ consumption is increasingly dominated by technology-driven systems, online self-verification becomes an important aspect of customers’ online purchasing behavior and plays a significant role in shaping social interactions in the online community. Across two studies, we examine whether online self-verification with an identity versus without an identity will lead to the different quality of online reviews. Study 1 used topic modeling with actual data stripped from Facebook and TripAdvisor customer online review sites and showed no difference between customer reviews underpinned with an identity or without. Likewise, Study 2 used an experimental design and found no significant difference between customer reviews with or without an identity. However, significant mediation effects of social ties and social capital were found when measuring the relationship between online self-verification and customer reviews. The findings build on the literature of user-generated online reviews and have important implications for academics and hospitality practitioners.

scholarly journals 234 Remote Surgical Teaching During COVID-19: Early Feedback from Students and Teachers

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Harris ◽  
G Khera ◽  
A r Alanbuki ◽  
K Ray ◽  
W Yusuf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Blended Learning ◽  
Practical Skills ◽  
Small Group Teaching ◽  
Surgical Ward ◽  
School Teaching ◽  
Surgical Teaching ◽  
The Government ◽  
Ward Rounds ◽  
Online Feedback

Abstract Background On the 23rd March 2020 the government issued a nationwide lockdown in response to COVID-19. Using Microsoft Teams software, Brighton and Sussex Medical School transitioned to remote surgical teaching. We discuss the early feedback from students and tutors. Method All students (N = 40) and tutors (N = 7) were invited to complete an online feedback survey. Results Twenty students responded. Nine preferred remote teaching. The teaching was described as either good (10/20) or excellent (10/20). Small group teaching, lectures and student lead seminar sessions all received positive feedback. Students preferred sessions that were interactive. One hour was optimal (17/20). There was no consensus over class size. 15/20 (75%) would like remote teaching to continue after the pandemic. All tutors responded. There was a preference towards shorter sessions: 45 minutes (2/7) one hour (5/7). Tutors found virtual sessions less interactive (6/7). All tutors would like remote teaching to continue after the pandemic. Three suggested extending teaching to remote surgical ward rounds. Concern was raised by both students and tutors regarding the absence of practical skills. Conclusions The value of remote teaching has been highlighted by COVID-19. Our feedback recommends a transition towards blended learning; using the convenience of remote teaching to help augment traditional medical school teaching.

Caring for care: Online feedback in the context of public healthcare services

2021 ◽  
pp. 114280
Author(s):  
Fadhila Mazanderani ◽  
Susan F. Kirkpatrick ◽  
Sue Ziebland ◽  
Louise Locock ◽  
John Powell
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Online Feedback

scholarly journals Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
German Language ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comment ◽  
Satisfaction With Treatment ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website ◽  
Online Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comments

BACKGROUND Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments. METHODS The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician’s communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician’s caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician’s friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%). CONCLUSIONS It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document