ABSTRACT:
Patients using healthcare services have substantial privacy concerns when writing online reviews of their physicians that may deter them from sharing information potentially helpful for others. This gives rise to a dilemma in which patients have to trade off between privacy and social welfare, leading to fewer and less informative reviews. To examine this trade off, we study how nudging strategies together with privacy control affect reviewers’ decisions related to the provision of reviews, disclosure of sensitive information, and identity revelation. We conducted a large-scale two-stage field experiment, complemented by lab experiments, to establish causality. Results reveal that nudging with an open appeal, compared to nudging with targeted benefits, increases the likelihood of patients submitting reviews. However, nudges that highlight benefits to self increase the proportion of patients revealing sensitive medical information in their reviews and the likelihood of them revealing their identity. Additionally, preemptive privacy control increases the likelihood of identity revelation without adversely impacting the sharing of sensitive information in reviews. Our findings highlight how nudging and privacy control influence patients’ review provision behavior. This study offers strategic implications for online platforms navigating the complex interplay of consumer motivations and privacy concerns in healthcare.
Key words and phrases: Physician reviews, nudging, privacy, healthcare, field experiment, large language models