Sustainable Healthcare in China: Analysis of User Satisfaction, Reuse Intention, and Electronic Word-of-Mouth for Online Health Service Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Understanding the manuscript: An interesting and well conducted study on the user interaction with OHSs. In my opinion, the manuscript is well structured and legible, except for some (quite major) English issues. The introduction is fine, although I recommend to make it more compact. It should also better highlight the research gap and the novelty of the study.
My only objection regards the “redefinition” of (system, interaction, and information) quality. Quality has already a clear definition. My further comments on this are in the attached pdf file. Please also refer to the “interaction design” terminology - I recommend ixd.org as an established knowledge source.

Relevance & novelty: The importance of IxD in OHSs is undeniable, and the study makes a fine contribution to it. Still, I recommend better highlighting the current research gap and how the study contributes in filling this gap.
 
Methodology: suited & well explained.

Quality of Writing: no objections regarding manuscript structure and legibility, except for the ocasional English issues (some of them are major). Please let a native English speaker re-check and correct all English issues. In this form, the manuscript cannot be published.

Abstract: fine, could be simplified a bit. Keywords: is “SDGs” really relevant here? The reference list seems just fine. The manuscript title seems also fine.

Please see the attached file for some more specific remarks that I did not mention here.

Thank you for an interesting manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the above remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file to find my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting to read, which also helps professionals working in the health equity and sustainability research field to better understand the potential of OHS platforms in China.

 

Major comments:

1. “Research Method” section: 

a. Section 3.1: A short introduction to the online survey platform might be helpful to the readers regarding which population will gain access to the survey platform to avoid potential selection bias from the survey tool. 

b. Section 3.1: Providing some additional information for those with incomplete data would be helpful. As monthly income was included in the survey, it is anticipated that some respondents may be reluctant to answer the income question but remain comfortable to complete answering the rest of the questions.

c. Section 3.2: The author didn’t specify the language of the survey, as well as whether a pilot test of the local language translation is conducted. Some additional information would help the readers to better understand the study.

2. “Discussion and Conclusion” section: As mentioned in the limitation by the authors, it would also be interesting to add survey questions such as what type of service the respondents utilized and conduct subgroup analysis based on the service type. In addition to service type, adding rurality information and access to care information to the questionnaire might also be worthy of understanding whether the OHS platform improves the equitable accessibility of healthcare in China.

 

Minor comments

3. For the “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development” section, the detailed hypothesis of each outcome of interest seemed repetitive. An overall summary of the hypothesis might be sufficient for the readers.

4. Table 1: It would be helpful to transfer the dollar unit in USD currency to help the readers understand the values of each amount presented in the table.

5. Table 3 and Table 5: It might be better if p= 0.000 is presented as p<0.001.

6. Table 5: The Result column might not be needed.

7. Table 6: The format of Table 6 is different from the other tables in the manuscript. 

 

Author Response

첨부파일을 참조해 주십시오.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx