Personalisiertes Lernen in der Bibliothek: das Düsseldorfer Online-Tutorial (DOT) Informationskompetenz

Die Autoren beschreiben das von ihnen entwickelte Lerninformationssystem zur Informationskompetenz. Der Artikel behandelt den Aufbau und die Perspektiven des Systems.

Die Nutzung des Gefällt mir-Buttons auf Organisationsprofilen : eine quantitative Studie zur Erfassung der Nutzungsmotive und des Verlaufs von Gefällt mir-Verknüpfungen zwischen Usern und Organisationen im Online-Netzwerk Facebook

Die Nutzung des Like-Buttons wurde bisher nur oberflächlich und vor allem auf den US-Raum begrenzt erforscht. Dabei lag der Fokus ausschließlich auf wirtschaftlich orientierten Unternehmen und dem monetären Wert, den ein Fan für dieses hat. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wird eine erweiterte Perspektive gewählt. Aus Sicht deutschsprachiger Nutzer wird erforscht, welche Motive und Bedürfnisse eine Person dazu veranlassen, sich freiwillig per Gefällt-mir zu verknüpfen. Hierzu wird der Uses and Gratifications-Ansatz herangezogen. Es stehen nicht Unternehmen, sondern generell alle Formen von Organisationen im Fokus. Gleichzeitig wird untersucht, wie diese Beziehungen verlaufen: Welche Erwartungen stellen Fans? Welche Handlungen nehmen sie wie häufig vor und welchen Effekt hat eine Fanbeziehung auf die Einstellung eines Nutzers gegenüber einer Organisation? Die Motive hinter der Nutzung des Gefällt mir-Buttons sind umfangreicher, als es bisherige Forschung vermuten ließ. Fans wollen informiert werden, sie wollen ihr Gefallen schnell und einfach bekunden und sich durch die Verknüpfung selbst darstellen. Weniger wichtig, aber dennoch von Relevanz sind die Motive der Partizipation und Unterstützung, der Empfehlung, der Vorteilssuche, der Unterhaltung sowie der Netzwerkerweiterung und Gruppenzugehörigkeit. Die Verwendung des Like-Buttons dient somit der Befriedigung einer ganzen Reihe von Nutzungsbedürfnissen. Der Verlauf der Beziehungen zwischen Organisationen und Usern ist eher von Passivität geprägt. Fans wollen zwar informiert werden und stellen konkrete Ansprüche an die Art und Form von Organisationsmeldungen, sie wollen aber nur selten wirklich direkt mit einem Unternehmen, einem Verein o.ä. interagieren. Langweilen die Meldungen einer Organisation, werden zu viele oder nicht relevante Informationen an die Fans weitergeben, zögern diese nicht, eine Verknüpfung zu beenden. Ein Effekt der Fanschaft auf die Einstellung von Nutzern gegenüber der jeweiligen Organisation konnte nur bedingt festgestellt werden. Letztere zieht einen Gewinn nicht aus einer erhöhten Ausgabebereitschaft seiner Fans, sondern aus deren stärkerer Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber Organisationsmeldungen.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures : results from two German physician rating websites

BACKGROUND: Even though physician rating websites (PRWs) have been gaining in importance in both practice and research, little evidence is available on the association of patients' online ratings with the quality of care of physicians. It thus remains unclear whether patients should rely on these ratings when selecting a physician. The objective of this study was to measure the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures for 65 physician practices from the German Integrated Health Care Network "Quality and Efficiency" (QuE). METHODS: Online reviews from two German PRWs were included which covered a three-year period (2011 to 2013) and included 1179 and 991 ratings, respectively. Information for 65 QuE practices was obtained for the year 2012 and included 21 measures related to structural information (N = 6), process quality (N = 10), intermediate outcomes (N = 2), patient satisfaction (N = 1), and costs (N = 2). The Spearman rank coefficient of correlation was applied to measure the association between ratings and practice-related information. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction results from offline surveys and the patients per doctor ratio in a practice were shown to be significantly associated with online ratings on both PRWs. For one PRW, additional significant associations could be shown between online ratings and cost-related measures for medication, preventative examinations, and one diabetes type 2-related intermediate outcome measure. There again, results from the second PRW showed significant associations with the age of the physicians and the number of patients per practice, four process-related quality measures for diabetes type 2 and asthma, and one cost-related measure for medication. CONCLUSIONS: Several significant associations were found which varied between the PRWs. Patients interested in the satisfaction of other patients with a physician might select a physician on the basis of online ratings. Even though our results indicate associations with some diabetes and asthma measures, but not with coronary heart disease measures, there is still insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions. The limited number of practices in our study may have weakened our findings.

Information Presentation Features and Comprehensibility of Hospital Report Cards: Design Analysis and Online Survey Among Users

Background: Improving the transparency of information about the quality of health care providers is one way to improve health care quality. It is assumed that Internet information steers patients toward better-performing health care providers and will motivate providers to improve quality. However, the effect of public reporting on hospital quality is still small. One of the reasons is that users find it difficult to understand the formats in which information is presented. Objective: We analyzed the presentation of risk-adjusted mortality rate (RAMR) for coronary angiography in the 10 most commonly used German public report cards to analyze the impact of information presentation features on their comprehensibility. We wanted to determine which information presentation features were utilized, were preferred by users, led to better comprehension, and had similar effects to those reported in evidence-based recommendations described in the literature. Methods: The study consisted of 5 steps: (1) identification of best-practice evidence about the presentation of information on hospital report cards; (2) selection of a single risk-adjusted quality indicator; (3) selection of a sample of designs adopted by German public report cards; (4) identification of the information presentation elements used in public reporting initiatives in Germany; and (5) an online panel completed an online questionnaire that was conducted to determine if respondents were able to identify the hospital with the lowest RAMR and if respondents’ hospital choices were associated with particular information design elements. Results: Evidence-based recommendations were made relating to the following information presentation features relevant to report cards: evaluative table with symbols, tables without symbols, bar charts, bar charts without symbols, bar charts with symbols, symbols, evaluative word labels, highlighting, order of providers, high values to indicate good performance, explicit statements of whether high or low values indicate good performance, and incomplete data (“N/A” as a value). When investigating the RAMR in a sample of 10 hospitals’ report cards, 7 of these information presentation features were identified. Of these, 5 information presentation features improved comprehensibility in a manner reported previously in literature. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze the most commonly used public reporting card designs used in Germany. Best-practice evidence identified in international literature was in agreement with 5 findings about German report card designs: (1) avoid tables without symbols, (2) include bar charts with symbols, (3) state explicitly whether high or low values indicate good performance or provide a “good quality” range, (4) avoid incomplete data (N/A given as a value), and (5) rank hospitals by performance. However, these findings are preliminary and should be subject of further evaluation. The implementation of 4 of these recommendations should not present insurmountable obstacles. However, ranking hospitals by performance may present substantial difficulties.

Do health care providers use online patient ratings to improve the quality of care?

Background: Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care. Objective: Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care. Methods: We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers' demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care. Results: Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings. Conclusions: Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.