Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study

Online ratings and narrative comments of American Head and Neck Society surgeons

BACKGROUND

We analyzed online rating scores and comments of head and neck surgeons to understand factors that contribute to higher ratings.

METHODS

Numerical ratings and comments for American Head and Neck Society physicians were extracted from Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and Yelp, with narrative comments categorized based on content. Physician practice location, education, and residency training were also compiled.

RESULTS

Patient ratings were significantly higher with supportive staff and affable physician demeanor but showed significant drops with longer wait times and difficulties scheduling appointments or follow-ups. Physician education and postgraduate training did not significantly affect ratings.

CONCLUSION

Online ratings and comments correlated to modifiable factors in clinical practice and may be informative in understanding patient needs.

The Credibility of Physician Rating Websites: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Increasingly, the credibility of online reviews is drawing critical attention due to the lack of control mechanisms, the constant debate about fake reviews and, last but not least, current developments in the field of artificial intelligence. For this reason, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which assessments recorded on physician rating websites (PRWs) are credible, based on a comparison to other evaluation criteria.

METHODS

Referring to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across different scientific databases. Data were synthesized by comparing individual statistical outcomes, objectives and conclusions.

RESULTS

The chosen search strategy led to a database of 36,755 studies of which 28 were ultimately included in the systematic review. The literature review yielded mixed results regarding the credibility of PRWs. While seven publications supported the credibility of PRWs, six publications found no correlation between PRWs and alternative datasets. 15 studies reported mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that ratings on PRWs seem to be credible when relying primarily on patients' perception. However, these portals seem inadequate to represent alternative comparative values such as the medical quality of physicians. For health policy makers our results show that decisions based on patients' perceptions may be well supported by data from PRWs. For all other decisions, however, PRWs do not seem to contain sufficiently useful data.