Poonam Joshi

Searching for a Medical Professional

March 2018 • Team Project for Inquiry Methods & Use Analysis

—Overview—

We explored user needs towards the design of a technology-based resource in searching for a medical professional. We began this project with observations of four participants demonstrating how they searched for healthcare providers. To gain additional insight into the experience of searching for a medical professional, we conducted four interviews and then surveyed thirty-five participants to analyze data from a larger sample size.

The following outlines the methods and findings, and discusses the implications for the design of an information sharing and recommender tool for Americans searching for healthcare providers.

—Observations—

Participants & Method

4 Participants were observed while they searched for a new medical professional that accepts their particular insurance plan.

To gather additional insights we ask participants about their typical needs when it comes to medical professionals.

We collected data on their search experience and why they choose they medical professional that they did.

Findings

Four common steps were identified from the Observations:

1. Search

2. Filter

3. Investigation

4. Selection

—Interviews—

Participants

Four interviews were conducted with individuals that met the following two requirements:

1. They had to be over 18

2. They had to have their own insurance, it couldn’t be through a parent

Method

Questions were focused on the following:

• The interviewees last medical professional search experience

• The reason behind their selection decision

• Their ideal search scenario

All interviews were coded for common themes first and then for a spectrum analysis.

Findings

We identified three themes from open-coding the transcriptions:

1. Motivation & Triggers

2. Tools & Methodology

3. Criteria & Priorities

—Survey—

Participants

In total, 35 valid respondents completed our survey.

Methods

The survey questions were created using Google Forms and automatically recorded in a Google Spreadsheet.

Data Analysis

The survey was written to gather data to test the following four hypotheses:

1. People covered by a new insurance company (within the last year) search more resources for doctors than those who have had their insurance one year or longer.

2. Certain age groups will be more likely to post a review for their doctor online.

3. Certain age groups will be more likely to consider online patient reviews as an important factor in their search for a medical professional.

4. Patients who rate the importance of online reviews at 4 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale are more likely to write reviews than those who rate them as 3 or lower.

In addition, the survey was used to gather information on behavior from a larger pool of candidates.

—Survey Findings—

After conducting statistical analysis we were able to reject all four original hypothesis.

We also identified the following themes from the survey: Search Catalyst, Search Catalyst, Search Criteria, Time Spent on Search.

Search Catalyst: The results showed that the main catalyst for an individual to search for a new doctor is being in a new location.

Search Criteria: The survey confirmed previous findings from the observations and interviews. Respondents found being the following to be important search criteria: In-network status, location, being able to see if a doctor is accepting new patients, doctor credentials, ease of booking an appointment and having access to reviews are all important aspects of our participant’s search for a medical professional.

Time Spent on Search: The amount of time our participants were spending on their search for a doctor varied but typically took a week or less with most of the respondents searching for one day.

Tools Used: We decided to dig deeper into what kinds of tools individuals are currently using for their search as it would guide implications for design.

—Personas—

By reviewing and analyzing the responses to our observations, Interviews, and survey, we developed two user personas, Nancy and Jeff.

—Experience Maps—

Using our findings and personas, we created two experience maps.

—Limitations & Future Work—

Due to time constraints, we were only able to observe and interview a small sample size of four participants within a limited age group. The majority of our participants lived in the same city, Chicago, IL.  This small sample sizes may not generalize to a larger population.

Lastly, in all three areas of our study (observation, interview and survey), we found that participants wanted to be able to read reviews on doctors but weren’t interested in writing reviews themselves.  Future research should examine why people submit reviews and ways to encourage them to leave reviews in order to provide ongoing, updated content for the application.