This paper examines the correlation between doctor reputation, clinical experience, the quality of interaction and patient satisfaction in internet healthcare sites based on empirical evidence associated with 100 healthcare professionals in the Hao Daifu Online which has become the largest telemedicine site in China. Using correlation analysis, t-tests, multiple regression, and mediation analysis, we look at how the doctor characteristics will affect patient satisfaction outcomes in digital healthcare settings. The results indicate that classic healthcare quality measures are those which do not work in digital settings as was anticipated by the traditional theories. The only notable direct predictor of satisfaction is patient volume (0.297, p = 0.025), whereas reputation variables have negative counter-intuitive associations with the percentage-based satisfaction measures. Importantly, mediation analysis shows that interaction quality is the main process whereby doctor characteristics affect satisfaction, and it mediates 58.0% of reputation effects and 79.7% of experience effects. Star ratings are better than percentage-based satisfaction indicators, which accounts 26.0% of the variance as compared to low explanatory rates of traditional percentage scales with severe ceiling effects. Platform activity is significant in enhancing satisfaction (t = 1.998, p = 0.049), and using digital interaction is important. The theoretical contribution of the study is that interaction quality is a primary construct in digital quality care models and the methodological contribution to the study is validation of star ratings with sentiment analysis (r = 0.612, p < 0.001). Practical implications imply that platforms must focus on interaction quality metrics and patient volume more than traditional credentials in the recommendation algorithm, whereas doctors must aim at developing responsive communication patterns and long-term patient engagement. The results of these studies contradict the existing standards of healthcare quality and require new theoretical basis relevant to technology-based healthcare provision, in which the quality of processes is more decisive than the quality of structures.

Kaisheng Su. The Impact of Doctor Reputation, Experience, and Interaction Quality on Patient Satisfaction in Internet Healthcare Platforms: An Empirical Analysis of Hao Daifu Online. Frontiers in Medical Science Research (2026), Vol. 8, Issue 1: 47-62. https://doi.org/10.25236/FMSR.2026.080106.

[1] D. C. Wu, X. Zhao, and J. Wu, “Online Physician-Patient Interaction and Patient Satisfaction: Empirical Study of the Internet Hospital Service,” J Med Internet Res, vol. 25, 2023, doi: 10.2196/39089.

[2] F. Yang, Y. Cheng, R. Yao, and X. Zhang, “What Key Factors Affect Patient Satisfaction on Online Medical Consultation Platforms? A Case Study from China,” Healthcare (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 5, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/HEALTHCARE13050540.

[3] P. Dodson, A. M. Haase, M. Jeffreys, and C. Hales, “Capturing patient experiences of care with digital technology to improve service delivery and quality of care: A scoping review,” Digit Health, vol. 10, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1177/20552076241282900.

[4] T. J. Daskivich, J. Houman, G. Fuller, J. T. Black, H. L. Kim, and B. Spiegel, “Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review,” J Am Med Inform Assoc, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 401–407, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1093/JAMIA/OCX083.

[5] M. Nguyen, M. Waller, A. Pandya, and J. Portnoy, “A Review of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Telemedicine,” Curr Allergy Asthma Rep, vol. 20, no. 11, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1007/S11882-020-00969-7.

[6] K. Pogorzelska and S. Chlabicz, “Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Systematic Review,” Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 19, no. 10, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/IJERPH19106113.

[7] G. G. Gao, J. S. McCullough, R. Agarwal, and A. K. Jha, “A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period,” J Med Internet Res, vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.2196/JMIR.2003.

[8] K. Okike et al., “A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System,” J Gen Intern Med, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2575–2579, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S11606-019-05265-3.

[9] W. A. Alashek and S. A. Ali, “Satisfaction with telemedicine use during COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a systematic review,” Libyan J Med, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 2301829, 2024, doi: 10.1080/19932820.2024.2301829.

[10] T. J. Daskivich, J. Houman, G. Fuller, J. T. Black, H. L. Kim, and B. Spiegel, “Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 401–407, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1093/JAMIA/OCX083.

[11] M. E. Vinadé Chagas et al., “Are We Adequately Measuring Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine? A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis,” Telemedicine and e-Health, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1522–1538, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1089/TMJ.2023.0530.

[12] R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, "The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173, 1986.