Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Nowadays, patients are seeking physician information more frequently via the Internet. Physician Rating Websites (PRWs) have been recognized as the most convenient way to gain insight and detailed information about specific physicians before consultation. However, little is known about how the information provided on PRWs may affect patients’ decisions to seek medical advice. Objective: This study aims to examine the relationship between the online reputation of physician and their perceived efforts on PRWs, and their aggregated number of patients consulted with online. Methods: A model, based on social exchange theory, was developed to analyze the factors associated with the number of online patients. A three-wave data collection exercise, covering 4041 physicians on China’s Good Doctor Website, was conducted during the months of February, April and June, 2017. Data was analyzed using a liner regression model and fixed effect model. Results: The adjusted R-squared in the linear regression model was 0.55 and 0.57, while in the fixed effect model, it was seen to be 0.75. Both the linear regression and fixed effect models yielded a high fit. A positive effect of physicians’ effort on the aggregated number of online patients was identified in all models (0.29, 0.37; 0.21; p<0.01). The proxies of physicians’ reputations indicated different results, with the physicians’ homepage reviews (0.43, 0.46; 0.166; p<0.01) and number of votes received (0.33, 0.27;0.27; p<0.01) being seen as positive. Virtual gifts were not significant in all models, while thank-you letters were only significant in the fixed effect model (0.09, p<0.05). The effort of physicians’ online is positively associated with their aggregated number of patients consulted, while the effect of a physician’s reputation remains unfixed. The control effect of physician’s gender, position and hospital’s level was not significant in all linear regressions. Conclusions: Both the effort and reputation of physicians’ online contribute to the increased number of patients consulted with online, however, the influence of a physician’s reputation varies. This may imply that physicians’ online effort and reputation is critical in attracting patients online, and strategic manipulation of physician profiles is worthy of study. Practical insights are also discussed.