Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/588863

Study on the Health Communication Behavior of Chinese Doctors on Network Media----Based on the Empirical Investigation of 119 Chinese Doctors

Hu, F.·Wang, P.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

IntroductionIn order to reduce the perceived risk of medical decision-making, Chinese patients tend to spend time and energy to understand relevant medical knowledge. After comparing online reviews and news reports of Chinese doctors, they carefully choose doctors. It is precisely because of the patients treatment habits that many doctors have spread health information through their own microblogs, WeChat public numbers, websites, videos and other means. Therefore, doctors speeches in cyberspace often play a dominant role in the development of health communication and guide the risk communication. This paper studies the influencing factors of Chinese doctors healthy communication behavior in online media. This has positive reference value for improving the health literacy of the whole people and the crisis management and guidance of public events.\n\nMethodsIn order to maximize the representativeness of the sample, the universality of the problems reflected in the survey data, and the adaptability of the purpose and method of the research questions, this paper adopts a multi-stage sampling method. In each region, a medical institution is selected according to a simple random sampling method in three types of hospitals: public hospitals, social hospitals, and primary medical institutions. A total of 10-11 medical institutions were selected in each region, and a total of 32 hospitals were selected from the three regions. According to the PPS sampling method, a corresponding number of working doctors are drawn in each hospital. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 21.0 statistical software.\n\nAnalysisThe study found that doctors transmission of health-related content on online media is still at a lower level of involvement, and the frequency of transmission is significantly lower than the general level. There are also significant differences in the health transmission of doctors from different backgrounds on the Internet. In the context of control hospital background, continue to examine the impact of Media usage and occupational psychology on doctors dissemination of health-related content. The results show that the influence of Media usage on the health communication behavior of doctors on the Internet media, to a certain extent, verifies that the rise of online media plays a significant role in putting doctors into health science. This also shows that the media has fostered the doctors communication behavior. In addition, the higher the self-efficacy of doctors in the workplace, the more cautious they are about their words and deeds, the more they care about the impact of their speech on interpersonal communication.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hu, F., Wang, P.. 2019-03-25. Study on the Health Communication Behavior of Chinese Doctors on Network Media----Based on the Empirical Investigation of 119 Chinese Doctors. https://doi.org/10.1101/588863

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics

Primary data collected during a research study is increasingly shared and may be re-used for new studies. To assess the extent of data sharing in favourable circumstances and whether such checks can be automated, this article investigates the summary statistics of primary human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This type of data is highly suitable for sharing because it is a standard research output, is straightforward to use in future studies (e.g., for secondary analysis), and may be already stored in a standard format for internal sharing within multi-site research projects. Manual checks of 1799 articles from 2010 and 2017 matching a simple PubMed query for molecular epidemiology GWAS were used to identify 330 primary human GWAS papers. Of these, only 10.6% reported the location of a complete set of GWAS summary data, increasing from 4.3% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2017. Whilst information about whether data was shared was usually located clearly within a data availability statement, the exact nature of the shared data was usually unspecified. Thus, data sharing is the exception even in suitable research fields with relatively strong norms regarding data sharing. Moreover, the lack of clear data descriptions within data sharing statements greatly complicates the task of automatically characterising shared data sets.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement Practices Among Dissemination & Implementation Scientists: Results from an Online Survey

IntroductionThere has been an increasing focus on disseminating research findings, but less about practices specific to disseminating and engaging non-researchers. The present project sought to describe dissemination practices and engagement of stakeholders among dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists.\n\nMethodsMethods to disseminate to and engage non-research stakeholders were assessed using an online survey sent to a broad, diverse sample of D&I scientists.\n\nResultsSurveys were received from 210 participants. The majority of respondents were from university or research settings in the U.S. (69%) or Canada (13%), representing a mix of clinical (28%) and community settings (34%). 26% had received formal training in D&I. Respondents indicated routinely engaging in a variety of dissemination-related activities, with academic journal publications (88%), conference presentations (86%), and reports to funders (74%) being the most frequent. Journal publication was identified as the most impactful on respondents careers (94%), but face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were rated as most impactful on practice or policy (40%). Stakeholder involvement in research was common, with clinical and community-based researchers engaging stakeholder groups in broadly similar ways, but with critical differences noted between researchers with greater seniority, those with more D&I training, those based in the US, and those in community vs, clinical research settings.\n\nConclusionsThere have been increases in stakeholder engagement, but few other practices since the 2012 survey, and some differences across subgroups. Methods to engage different stakeholders deserve more in-depth investigation. D&I researchers report substantial misalignment of incentives and behaviors related to dissemination to non-research audiences.

scientific communication and education↗