ABSTRACT Background In the evolving patient‐centred healthcare market, family members often act as ‘surrogate information seekers’, playing a pivotal role in medical decision‐making and hospital selection. However, unlike healthcare professionals, these lay consumers face significant challenges in evaluating the quality of online medical information. This study applies the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine how patient families perceive medical information quality and how these perceptions influence their satisfaction and intention to revisit medical institutions. Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted with 318 patient families who had utilised healthcare services in the southern region of Gyeonggi Province, South Korea. The collected data were analysed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test the hypothesised relationships between information quality dimensions (accuracy, reliability, timeliness, accessibility), perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioural intentions. Results The findings indicate that reliability, timeliness, and accessibility significantly enhance both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Notably, the accuracy of information did not exert a significant influence on users' perceptions, suggesting that lay families may rely more on heuristic cues like accessibility and timeliness than on technical precision. Furthermore, satisfaction with medical information was found to significantly increase hospital satisfaction, which in turn served as a strong predictor of the intention to revisit. Conclusion These results suggest that for healthcare providers, merely claiming information accuracy is insufficient to engage patient families. Instead, institutions should prioritise communication strategies that ensure information is easily accessible and transparently reliable. By lowering barriers to information and enhancing usability, providers can reduce family anxiety, improve satisfaction, and ultimately build long‐term institutional trust.
SangYoon Lim (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: