BMJ Open (May 2023)

Validity of patients' online reviews at direct-to-consumer teleconsultation platforms: a protocol for a cross-sectional study using unannounced standardised patients

  • Wenjun He,
  • Yiyuan Cai,
  • Wenjie Gong,
  • Changchang Li,
  • Qing Zhao,
  • Dong Xu,
  • Zhang Zhang,
  • Huanyuan Luo,
  • Jiaqi Li,
  • Siyuan Liu,
  • Sensen lv,
  • Yutong Wang,
  • Wenping Hu,
  • Yunyun Xie,
  • Yuting Wan,
  • Dongmei Zhong,
  • Lanping Zhang,
  • Chunping Li,
  • Xiaoshan Chen,
  • Wangqing Huang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071783
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 5

Abstract

Read online

Introduction As direct-to-consumer teleconsultation (hereafter referred to as ‘teleconsultation’) has gained popularity, an increasing number of patients have been leaving online reviews of their teleconsultation experiences. These reviews can help guide patients in identifying doctors for teleconsultation. However, few studies have examined the validity of online reviews in assessing the quality of teleconsultation against a gold standard. Therefore, we aim to use unannounced standardised patients (USPs) to validate online reviews in assessing both the technical and patient-centred quality of teleconsultations. We hypothesise that online review results will be more consistent with the patient-centred quality, rather than the technical quality, as assessed by the USPs.Methods and analysis In this cross-sectional study, USPs representing 11 common primary care conditions will randomly visit 253 physicians via the three largest teleconsultation platforms in China. Each physician will receive a text-based and a voice/video-based USP visit, resulting in a total of 506 USP visits. The USP will complete a quality checklist to assess the proportion of clinical practice guideline-recommended items during teleconsultation. After each visit, the USP will also complete the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Rating. The USP-assessed results will be compared with online review results using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). If ICC >0.4 (p<0.05), we will assume reasonable concordance between the USP-assessed quality and online reviews. Furthermore, we will use correlation analysis, Lin’s Coordinated Correlation Coefficient and Kappa as supplementary analyses.Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Southern Medical University (#Southern Medical Audit (2022) No. 013). Results will be actively disseminated through print and social media, and USP tools will be made available for other researchers.Trial registration The study has been registered at the China Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2200062975).