Cross-sectional study reveals reputation and social media impact HCP selection among Saudi residents, suggesting improvements.
Background: In the current healthcare system, patients increasingly play a significant role in selecting their healthcare providers (HCPs). This decision-making process has the potential to enhance service quality and reduce expenses. Access to quality information about HCPs is essential for patients to make informed choices. This study aims to identify the factors influencing HCP selection among residents of Al-Majmaah, Saudi Arabia, to suggest improvements in healthcare satisfaction and efficiency. Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted in Al-Majmaah, Saudi Arabia (Feb-Apr 2024), targeting 414 adults aged ≥18 via an online questionnaire (Appendix A). Statistical analysis using R v 4.3 included linear regression, Sidak adjustment, and multinomial logistic regression to assess demographic associations with HCP preferences and trust in recommendation sources. Results were visualized with box/violin plots and tested at a 5% significance level. Results: Analysis of 414 participants revealed reputation and experience as critical HCP selection factors. Family was the most trusted recommendation source (54.6%), followed by friends (20.1%) and social media (15.9%). The X platform was most trusted (61.4%), with TikTok (14.0%) and Snapchat (13.8%) nearly equal. A significant majority (85.5%) believed more information would improve decision-making. Age influenced social media preference: younger respondents (mean age 23.63 years) preferred TikTok, while older (mean age 38.50 years) favored Facebook. Conclusion: This study emphasizes patient HCP preferences, highlighting family and social media influence, and provider reputation and experience. It suggests prioritizing transparency, reputation, and communication to enhance patient satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shihah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: