Colorectal cancer (CRC) is third in prevalence and mortality among all cancers in the US. Currently, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends anyone ages 50–75 and/or with a family history to be screened for CRC. To improve screening specificity and sensitivity, we have built an artificial neural network (ANN) trained on 12 to 14 categories of personal health data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Years 1997–2016 of the NHIS contain 583,770 respondents who had never received a diagnosis of any cancer and 1409 who had received a diagnosis of CRC within 4 years of taking the survey. The trained ANN has sensitivity of 0.57 ± 0.03, specificity of 0.89 ± 0.02, positive predictive value of 0.0075 ± 0.0003, negative predictive value of 0.999 ± 0.001, and concordance of 0.80 ± 0.05 per the guidelines of Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) level 2a, comparable to current risk-scoring methods. To demonstrate clinical applicability, both USPSTF guidelines and the trained ANN are used to stratify respondents to the 2017 NHIS into low-, medium- and high-risk categories (TRIPOD levels 4 and 2b, respectively). The number of CRC respondents misclassified as low risk is decreased from 35% by screening guidelines to 5% by ANN (in 60 cases). The number of non-CRC respondents misclassified as high risk is decreased from 53% by screening guidelines to 6% by ANN (in 25,457 cases). Our results demonstrate a robustly-tested method of stratifying CRC risk that is non-invasive, cost-effective, and easy to implement publicly.

Purpose: This study examines how service feedback and physician popularity affect physician demand in the context of virtual healthcare environment. Based on the signaling theory, the critical factor of environment uncertainty (i.e. disease risk) and its impact on physician demand is also investigated. Further, the research on the endogeneity of online reviews in healthcare is also examined in the current study.Design/methodology/approach: A secondary data econometric analysis using 3-wave data sets of 823 physicians obtained from two PRWs (Healthgrades and Vitals) was conducted. The analysis was run using the difference-in-difference method to consider physician and website-specific effects.Findings: The study's findings indicate that physician popularity has a stronger positive effect on physician demand compared with service feedback. Improving popularity leads to a relative increase in the number of appointments, which in turn enhance physician demand. Further, the impact of physician popularity on physician demand is positively mitigated by the disease risk.Originality/value: The authors' research contributes to a better understanding of the signaling transmission mechanism in the online healthcare environment. Further, the findings provide practical implications for key stakeholders into how an efficient feedback and popularity mechanism can be built to enhance physician service outcomes in order to maximize the financial efficiency of physicians.

(1) Background: The appearance of physician rating websites (PRWs) has raised researchers’ interest in the online healthcare field, particularly how users consume information available on PRWs in terms of online physician reviews and providers’ information in their decision-making process. The aim of this study is to consistently review the early scientific literature related to digital healthcare platforms, summarize key findings and study features, identify literature deficiencies, and suggest digital solutions for future research. (2) Methods: A systematic literature review using key databases was conducted to search published articles between 2010 and 2020 and identified 52 papers that focused on PRWs, different signals in the form of PRWs’ features, the findings of these studies, and peer-reviewed articles. The research features and main findings are reported in tables and figures. (3) Results: The review of 52 papers identified 22 articles for online reputation, 15 for service popularity, 16 for linguistic features, 15 for doctor–patient concordance, 7 for offline reputation, and 11 for trustworthiness signals. Out of 52 studies, 75% used quantitative techniques, 12% employed qualitative techniques, and 13% were mixed-methods investigations. The majority of studies retrieved larger datasets using machine learning techniques (44/52). These studies were mostly conducted in China (38), the United States (9), and Europe (3). The majority of signals were positively related to the clinical outcomes. Few studies used conventional surveys of patient treatment experience (5, 9.61%), and few used panel data (9, 17%). These studies found a high degree of correlation between these signals with clinical outcomes. (4) Conclusions: PRWs contain valuable signals that provide insights into the service quality and patient treatment choice, yet it has not been extensively used for evaluating the quality of care. This study offers implications for researchers to consider digital solutions such as advanced machine learning and data mining techniques to test hypotheses regarding a variety of signals on PRWs for clinical decision-making.