Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites

Social media use and patient ratings in shoulder and elbow surgeons: how many "likes" for five stars?

BACKGROUND

Social media plays an important role in healthcare and physician selection by facilitating direct communication with patients and impacting physician ratings. A concern however is the increased online scrutiny and negative impact on patient satisfaction with these connections. This study aimed to investigate whether social media activity by fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons impacts patient's perceptions and ratings on physician review websites (PRWs).

METHODS

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons physician directory was used to identify currently practicing shoulder and elbow surgeons in the United States. Physician ratings were collected from Healthgrades, Google reviews, and Vitals. The surgeons were divided into two groups: social media users (SMU) and non- SMU (NSMU). The association of social media use with online physician ratings was evaluated using simple and multilinear regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 385 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons surgeons were included and 21.3% were SMU. SMU were younger (mean age, 48 years) compared to NSMU (mean age, 51 years) (P = .01), all other demographics were comparable including sex (P = .797), medical degree (P = .114), and geographic location within the United States (P = .49). SMU had significantly higher ratings on Healthgrades (P < .001) and Vitals (P < .001). However, social media use did not impact the total number of ratings on PRWs. Additionally, surgeons who utilized Facebook had higher physician ratings and number of website reviews on Healthgrades (P = .028 and P = .014, respectively). In addition, surgeons who used Twitter had higher ratings on Healthgrades (P < .001) and Vitals (P = .001). Surgeons with a greater average number of likes per post on Twitter had significantly higher average ratings across all three sites (P = .004). Surgeons with a greater number of Twitter followers and greater average number of likes per post had significantly higher average ratings on Healthgrades (P = .052 and P = .005, respectively) while surgeons with a greater average number of likes per post had significantly higher average ratings on Vitals (P = .006). Finally, surgeons with a greater average posting frequency on Instagram had significantly higher average ratings across all websites (P = .029).

CONCLUSION

Shoulder and elbow surgeons who use Twitter and Facebook had significantly higher online ratings. However, the increased use of these platforms in terms of postcontent, postfrequency, comments, and number of followers was not as influential on PRWs. This suggests that social media is an important marketing and outreach method for orthopedic surgeons to improve their ratings and patient reviews.

How Do Users Respond to Mass Vaccination Centers? A Cross-Sectional Study Using Natural Language Processing on Online Reviews to Explore User Experience and Satisfaction with COVID-19 Vaccination Centers

To reach large groups of vaccine recipients, several high-income countries introduced mass vaccination centers for COVID-19. Understanding user experiences of these novel structures can help optimize their design and increase patient satisfaction and vaccine uptake. This study drew on user online reviews of vaccination centers to assess user experience and identify its key determinants over time, by sentiment, and by interaction. Machine learning methods were used to analyze Google reviews of six COVID-19 mass vaccination centers in Berlin from December 2020 to December 2021. 3647 user online reviews were included in the analysis. Of these, 89% (3261/3647) were positive according to user rating (four to five of five stars). A total of 85% (2740/3647) of all reviews contained text. Topic modeling of the reviews containing text identified five optimally latent topics, and keyword extraction identified 47 salient keywords. The most important themes were organization, friendliness/responsiveness, and patient flow/wait time. Key interactions for users of vaccination centers included waiting, scheduling, transit, and the vaccination itself. Keywords connected to scheduling and efficiency, such as "appointment" and "wait", were most prominent in negative reviews. Over time, the average rating score decreased from 4.7 to 4.1, and waiting and duration became more salient keywords. Overall, mass vaccination centers appear to be positively perceived, yet users became more critical over the one-year period of the pandemic vaccination campaign observed. The study shows that online reviews can provide real-time insights into newly set-up infrastructures, and policymakers should consider their use to monitor the population's response over time.

Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria

To date, the digital assessment of service experiences represents a decisive process step of a feedback culture in numerous economic areas. In view of this digitalization of service assessments, the importance of Physician Rating Websites (PRWs) has also increased steadily in recent years. Even though these websites could be perceived as a powerful communication tool for the exchange of health specific information, the knowledge about whether and how different population segments use these portals has been limited so far. For this reason, our aim was to investigate the level of awareness regarding PRWs among the study population and to discover how users interact with this specific type of online portals. We performed an online survey including 558 participants. To ensure the attention and integrity of participants, attention checks were included in the questionnaire. Study participants who did not exceed the mentioned security levels were excluded from the study. Statistical analyses were carried out, using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. To illustrate the relationship between demographic variables and dependent variables, two tailed chi square tests were performed. Comparison of means and t-testing was used to investigate the relationship between psychographic variables and the dependent variables. In addition to that, the awareness levels regarding different rating portals were evaluated using descriptive methods. Our results suggest that the general awareness regarding PRWs is relatively high (75.6%, 423/558), especially among female (x21 = 9.880, P = .002), middle-aged (x29 = 26.810, P = .002), more highly educated (x24 = 19.038, P = .001), urban (x21 = 6.274, P = .012), digitally literate (t203 = 2.63, P = .009) individuals and particularly among respondents with a higher eHealth literacy (t203 = 2.37, P = .019). Even though more than three quarters of the respondents know that PRWs exist, compared to other rating platforms, they are only in the lower midfield. The upper ranks are taken by websites on which restaurant visits (98.9%, 552/558), hotel stays (97.7%, 545/558) or movies (95.5%, 533/558) can be rated. The most popular PRWs in Austria include Docfinder.at (31.3%, 175/558; 77.8%, 434/558) followed by the evaluation tools provided by Google.at (8.24%, 46/558; 70.3%, 392/558) and Herold.at (1.61%, 9/558; 44.8%, 250/558). In Austria, PRWs seem to be characterized by a high degree of interaction (89.2%, 498/558) with a wide variety of different types of interactions. While many respondents use PRWs to retrieve general information (83.2%, 464/558), there are significantly fewer who read physicians' reviews (60.9%, 340/558) and use this portal to select a physician (60.6%, 338/558). Respondents who have already rated a doctor themselves belong to the smallest group accounting for just 14.7% (82/558). Significant effects regarding the interaction with PRWs exist between different genders, ages, education levels, marital statuses, occupations and areas of living. In addition to that, respondents with better feelings towards the internet, greater digital literacy as well as a higher eHealth literacy were also characterized with a higher interaction rate regarding PRWs. According to the high level of awareness of and interaction with PRWs within our study population, PRWs appear to be a successful medium for health-related communication. Especially for female, middle-aged, more highly educated, urban and more technology savvy population segments, PRWs seem to represent an effective tool to support the health-specific decision-making process.

The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach

BACKGROUND

Physician rating websites (PRWs) have become increasingly important in the cross-section between health and digitalization. Social influence plays a crucial role in human behavior in many domains of life, as can be demonstrated by the increase in high-profile influential individuals such as social media influencers (SMIs). Particularly in the health-specific environment, the opinion of family and friends has a significant influence on health-related decisions. However, so far, there has been little discussion about the role of social influence as an antecedent of behavioral intention to use PRWs.

OBJECTIVE

On the basis of theories of social psychology and technology acceptance and theories from the economic perspective, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs.

METHODS

We conducted 2 studies by applying a mixed methods approach including a total of 712 participants from the Austrian population. The impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs was investigated through linear regression and mediation and moderated mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro 4.0 in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp).

RESULTS

The 2 studies show similar results. In study 1, an experiment, no direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be detected. However, an indirect effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs via credibility (b=0.572; P=.005) and performance expectancy (b=0.340; P<.001) could be confirmed. The results of study 2, a cross-sectional study, demonstrate that social influence seems to have a direct impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.410; P<.001). However, when calculating the proposed mediation model, it becomes clear that this impact may partly be explained through the 2 mediator variables-credibility (b=0.208; P<.001) and performance expectancy (b=0.312; P<.001). In contrast to the observed direct and indirect effect, neither demographic nor psychographic variables have a significant moderating impact on the influencing chain in study 2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an indication that social influence has at least an indirect impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. It was observed that this impact is exerted through credibility and performance expectancy. According to the findings of both studies, social influence has the potential to boost the use of PRWs. As a result, these web-based networks might be a promising future interface between health care and digitalization, allowing health care practitioners to gain a beneficial external impact while also learning from feedback. Social influence nowadays is not just limited to friends and family but can also be exerted by SMIs in the domain of PRW use. Thus, from a marketing perspective, PRW providers could think of collaborating with SMIs, and our results could contribute to stimulating discussion in this vein.

Rating Spine Surgeons: Physician Review Websites Versus a Patient-reported Outcomes-derived Ranking

STUDY DESIGN

This was an observational study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine the correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) pulled from a national spine registry and physician ratings from physician review websites (PRWs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

PRWs are frequently utilized by patients to make health care decisions; however, many PRWs appear to incorporate subjective experiences unrelated to a surgeon's clinical performance into ratings. As such, their utility as a health care decision-making tool remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study evaluated 8834 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) who underwent 1-level elective lumbar spine surgery. The lumbar module of QOD was queried to rank 124 surgeons using PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale-back/leg pain, and patient satisfaction). The QOD PRO-ranking system was compared against PRWs including Healthgrades, Vitals, WebMD, and Google. The Spearman correlation coefficients, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression models were used for statistical comparison. The primary outcome was the correlation between PRW scores and PROs.

RESULTS

Surgeon PRO-derived ranking showed high intercorrelational congruence with coefficients between the 3 PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale back/leg) ranging between 0.70 and 0.88. Low correlations were observed between PRO-derived rankings and PRWs, ranging from 0.23 to 0.37. Healthgrades performed most similarly to PRO-derived rankings, correlating best with patient satisfaction, though the correlation was low (ρ=0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

While PRWs are often used to evaluate surgeon competency, these results demonstrate they poorly correlate with a surgeon's clinical ability measured by PROs. PRWs should be used with caution when making health care decisions by patients, payers, and administrators.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Factors Associated with the Patient/Client Use of Report Cards, Physician Rating Websites, Social Media, and Google for Hospital and Physician Selection: A Nationwide Survey

Objective: To explore the factors associated with the different uses of report cards, physician rating websites, social media, and Google, including awareness, physician finding, and decision-making based on reviews from the patient/client perspective. Methods: We used computer-assisted telephone interviews to conduct a nationwide representative survey in Taiwan. Results: The urbanization level of the area, income, and long-term health conditions were not associated with the three kinds of usage of the websites studied. Seeking health information was an important factor in the three kinds of website use. The employment industry was associated with awareness, and education level was associated with physician seeking and actions based on reviews. Conclusions: Different factors influenced the three kinds of usage: awareness, actual use (i.e., finding an appropriate physician), and decision-making based on reviews. Seeking health information is of primary importance regardless of how the websites are used. Practical implications: Policy-makers should focus on educating individuals working outside the health care sector to increase awareness of these websites and to assist individuals with low levels of education in increasing their use of these websites.

Investigating the effect of service feedback and physician popularity on physician demand in the virtual healthcare environment

Purpose

This study examines how service feedback and physician popularity affect physician demand in the context of virtual healthcare environment. Based on the signaling theory, the critical factor of environment uncertainty (i.e. disease risk) and its impact on physician demand is also investigated. Further, the research on the endogeneity of online reviews in healthcare is also examined in the current study.

Design/methodology/approach

A secondary data econometric analysis using 3-wave data sets of 823 physicians obtained from two PRWs (Healthgrades and Vitals) was conducted. The analysis was run using the difference-in-difference method to consider physician and website-specific effects.

Findings

The study's findings indicate that physician popularity has a stronger positive effect on physician demand compared with service feedback. Improving popularity leads to a relative increase in the number of appointments, which in turn enhance physician demand. Further, the impact of physician popularity on physician demand is positively mitigated by the disease risk.

Originality/value

The authors' research contributes to a better understanding of the signaling transmission mechanism in the online healthcare environment. Further, the findings provide practical implications for key stakeholders into how an efficient feedback and popularity mechanism can be built to enhance physician service outcomes in order to maximize the financial efficiency of physicians.

A Large Number of Reviews on Physician Rating Websites May Reflect Reputation Management

Background

Physicians with a large number of reviews and a high rating may be employing reputation management strategies. Specialists may be more likely than non-specialists to employ such strategies. This should be apparent in a study of online physician reviews on physician rating websites (PRW).

Methods

Using one physician rating website, we gathered orthopedic surgeon and family physician reviews. We measured Spearman correlations between the number of reviews and average numerical rating and used chi-squared to test threshold relationships.

Results

There were very small negative Spear-man correlations between the number of online reviews and the average numerical rating for orthopedic surgeons (p= -0.097, p-value=<0.001) family medicine physicians (p= -0.170, p-value=<0.001; Figure 2). Physicians with more than 100 reviews had a greater average numerical rating than physicians with fewer than 50 reviews. Orthopedic surgeons are more likely than family medicine physicians to have a large number of reviews and average numerical rating greater than 3.

Conclusion

The small fraction of physician with a high number of reviews may be utilizing reputation management strategies, and this seems relatively specific to specialists rather than non-specialists. Level of Evidence: III.

Internet search by the patients undergoing hernia surgery about the disease and surgeon selection

AIM

To find out the current status of the internet use of patients who undergo surgery for repair of their hernias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients who were diagnosed with abdominal wall hernia and scheduled for elective hernia repair were requested to answer a questionnaire. The questions were directed face-to-face by the surgeons themselves. The age, gender, education status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, place of living, health insurance, access to the Internet, surgical method, the person who did the search, previous hernia surgery, recurrence of previous hernia surgery, surgery other than hernia, and the hernia type were the recorded parameters at the first stage. Then, the answers for three main questions were taken: "Did you make a search about your hernia?", "Did you make a search about your surgeon?", "Would you prefer another surgeon if you could?"

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in the study (146 male/54 female). 55.5% of the patients made an Internet search about their hernias. 58.5% of the patients made a search to find a proper surgeon. 12.5% of the patients stated that they would like to go to another surgeon for the hernia repair if it was possible. Internet search rate was significantly higher in younger patients in comparison with older patients. The higher the education level of the patients, the higher the rate of making Internet searches about the hernias and surgeons. Patients who live in the cities more frequently made Internet searches in comparison with those living in towns or villages. Internet searches about the hernias were similar in patients who had a history of hernia surgery (n = 23, 52%), and were even operated for recurrence of the same hernia (n = 30, 60%), compared to other patients (p = 0.569). Similarly, the rates of conducting surgeon research of the patients in these two groups (66.7%, 56.5%, respectively) were statistically similar (p = 0.450). The effect of ASA classification of patients on the Internet researches conducted about the disease and about the surgeons was not statistically significant (p = 0.799, p = 0.388, respectively). It was found that the rates of researching about the disease and about the surgeon on the Internet were significantly higher in patients who had undergone a minimally invasive surgery (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than two-thirds of the hernia patients make Internet search about their disease. Higher education level, younger age, patient's preference for minimally invasive surgery and living in a city positively affect Internet search rates.

Use of Online Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologist Competency: Mixed-Method Sequential Explanatory Study (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Patients increasingly use web-based evaluation tools to assess their physicians, health care teams, and overall medical experience.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which the standardized physician competencies of the CanMEDS Framework are present in web-based patient reviews (WPRs) and to identify patients' perception of important physician qualities in the context of quality cancer care.

METHODS

The WPRs of all university-affiliated medical oncologists in midsized cities with medical schools in the province of Ontario (Canada) were collected. Two reviewers (1 communication studies researcher and 1 health care professional) independently assessed the WPRs according to the CanMEDS Framework and identified common themes. Comment scores were then evaluated to identify κ agreement rates between the reviewers, and a descriptive quantitative analysis of the cohort was completed. Following the quantitative analysis, an inductive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

This study identified 49 actively practicing university-affiliated medical oncologists in midsized urban areas in Ontario. A total of 473 WPRs reviewing these 49 physicians were identified. Among the CanMEDS competencies, those defining the roles of medical experts, communicators, and professionals were the most prevalent (303/473, 64%; 182/473, 38%; and 129/473, 27%, respectively). Common themes in WPRs include medical skill and knowledge, interpersonal skills, and answering questions (from the patient to the physician). Detailed WPRs tend to include the following elements: experience and connection; discussion and evaluation of the physician's knowledge, professionalism, interpersonal skills, and punctuality; in positive reviews, the expression of feelings of gratitude and a recommendation; and in negative reviews, discouragement from seeking the physician's care. Patients' perception of medical skills is less specific than their perception of interpersonal qualities, although medical skills are the most commented-on element of care in WPRs. Patients' perception of interpersonal skills (listening, compassion, and overall caring demeanor) and other experiential phenomena, such as feeling rushed during appointments, is often specific and detailed. Details about a physician's interpersonal skills or "bedside manner" are highly perceived, valued, and shareable in an WPR context. A small number of WPRs reflected a distinction between the value of medical skills and that of interpersonal skills. The authors of these WPRs claimed that for them, a physician's medical skills and competence are more important than their interpersonal skills.

CONCLUSIONS

CanMEDS roles and competencies that are explicitly patient facing (ie, those directly experienced by patients in their interactions with physicians and through the care that physicians provide) are the most likely to be present and reported on in WPRs. The findings demonstrate the opportunity to learn from WPRs, not simply to discern physicians' popularity but to grasp what patients may expect from their physicians. In this context, WPRs can represent a method for the measurement and assessment of patient-facing physician competency.

Physician Gender, Patient Risk, and Web-Based Reviews: Longitudinal Study of the Relationship Between Physicians' Gender and Their Web-Based Reviews

Background

Web-based reviews of physicians have become exceedingly popular among health care consumers since the early 2010s. A factor that can potentially influence these reviews is the gender of the physician, because the physician’s gender has been found to influence patient-physician communication. Our study is among the first to conduct a rigorous longitudinal analysis to study the effects of the gender of physicians on their reviews, after accounting for several important clinical factors, including patient risk, physician specialty, and temporal factors, using time fixed effects. In addition, this study is among the first to study the possible gender bias in web-based reviews using statewide data from Alabama, a predominantly rural state with high Medicaid and Medicare use.

Objective

This study conducts a longitudinal empirical investigation of the relationship between physician gender and their web-based reviews using data across the state of Alabama, after accounting for patient risk and temporal effects.

Methods

We created a unique data set by combining data from web-based physician reviews from the popular physician review website, RateMDs, and clinical data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the state of Alabama. We used longitudinal econometric specifications to conduct an econometric analysis, while controlling for several important clinical and review characteristics across four rating dimensions (helpfulness, knowledge, staff, and punctuality). The overall rating and these four rating dimensions from RateMDs were used as the dependent variables, and physician gender was the key explanatory variable in our panel regression models.

Results

The panel used to conduct the main econometric analysis included 1093 physicians. After controlling for several clinical and review factors, the physician random effects specifications showed that male physicians receive better web-based ratings than female physicians. Coefficients and corresponding SEs and P values of the binary variable GenderFemale (1 for female physicians and 0 otherwise) with different rating variables as outcomes were as follows: OverallRating (coefficient –0.194, SE 0.060; P=.001), HelpfulnessRating (coefficient –0.221, SE 0.069; P=.001), KnowledgeRating (coefficient –0.230, SE 0.065; P<.001), StaffRating (coefficient –0.123, SE 0.062; P=.049), and PunctualityRating (coefficient –0.200, SE 0.067; P=.003). The negative coefficients indicate a bias toward male physicians versus female physicians for aforementioned rating variables.

Conclusions

This study found that female physicians receive lower web-based ratings than male physicians even after accounting for several clinical characteristics associated with the physicians and temporal effects. Although the magnitude of the coefficients of GenderFemale was relatively small, they were statistically significant. This study provides support to the findings on gender bias in the existing health care literature. We contribute to the existing literature by conducting a study using data across the state of Alabama and using a longitudinal econometric analysis, along with incorporating important clinical and review controls associated with the physicians.

Social Media in Hip Arthroscopy Is an Underused Resource That Enhances Physician Online Reputation

Purpose

To analyze the impact of professional social media (SM) presence, activity level, and physician practice–specific variables on online ratings and rating frequency for hip arthroscopists across 3 leading physician review websites (PRWs).

Methods

The Arthroscopy Association of North America and American Orthopaedic Society of Sports Medicine directories were queried to identify practicing hip arthroscopists. Physicians included were residency-trained surgeons practicing within the United States. Surgeon ratings, comments, and reviews were compiled from 3 PRWs (Google, Healthgrades, Vitals). Google searches assessed for professional Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts and demographic information. Surgeons were considered active if they posted the month before data collection. Logistical regression and a univariate model analyzed effects of demographic factors and other variables on SM use and PRW statistics.

Results

In total, 555 surgeons met inclusion criteria (93.2% male, 6.8% female); 41% had a professional SM account (27.4% Facebook, 24.3% Twitter, 12.1% Instagram). Few surgeons with SM actively posted (30.5% Facebook, 43.7% Twitter, 37.3% Instagram). Surgeons with any SM had significantly greater number of ratings on all review websites (P < .001). Linear regression revealed academic physicians had lower number of ratings (P = .002) and average ratings (P < .001). Instagram users had an average 12.4 more ratings. Surgeons more likely to use SM resided in greater population cities (990 vs 490 [per 1,000]) with higher surgeon density (3.3 vs 2.2).

Conclusions

Most hip arthroscopists have no professional SM, and fewer frequently post content. SM presence significantly increases the number of ratings on PRWs but does not affect overall rating. Surgeons using SM practice in more populous cities with more competition. Academic surgeons had fewer ratings and lower average ratings. A professional Instagram account can increase the number of online ratings.

Clinical Relevance

Understanding how SM presence affects an orthopaedic surgeon’s practice may provide information on how surgeons best connect with patients.

What Affects an Orthopaedic Surgeon's Online Rating? A Large-Scale, Retrospective Analysis

Introduction:

In the past decade, online physician review websites have become an important source of information for patients, with the largest and most popular being Healthgrades.com. Our study aims to investigate demographic and volume-based trends for online reviews of every Healthgrades-listed orthopaedic surgeon through a nationwide, retrospective analysis.

Methods:

All available demographic and rating information for orthopaedic surgeons (n = 28,713; Healthgrades.com) was analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance, Tukey Studentized Range (Honestly Significant Difference), linear regression, and Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results:

The mean rating for all surgeons was 3.99 (SD 0.92), and the mean number of ratings was 13.43 (SD 20.4). Men had a greater mean rating at 4.02 compared with women at 3.91 (P < 0.0001), and DO surgeons had greater mean rating at 4.11 compared with MD surgeons at 3.90 (P < 0.0001). The correlation between rating and age had a significant negative correlation (P < 0.0001). The correlation between average online rating and number of reviews had a significant positive correlation (P < 0.0001).

Discussion:

Our analysis suggests that greater online ratings are associated with the male sex and DO degrees. In addition, our study discovered that the number of ratings was positively correlated with greater mean online ratings, whereas older age was negatively correlated with greater mean online ratings.

Choosing a Provider: What Factors Matter Most to Consumers and Patients?

Enhancing consumer and patient choice has been proposed as a means to improve care quality and reduce health-related costs. Choosing a medical provider is one of the most critical and often complex decisions patients make about their health care. We investigated the perceived importance of factors patients may consider when selecting a practitioner and if rated importance of the factors varies with their characteristics and prior experiences with different types of clinicians (physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners). Participants most often identified medical license, certification, and whether the provider accepts the patients’ health insurance as important, while provider type, others’ recommendations, and online reviews were among the least important. We found wide-ranging differences based on patient characteristics. Prior experience with providers was also a strong determinant of patterns of factors patients considered valuable. Policy-makers, health systems, insurers, and providers need to take into account that patients rely on a range of factors that vary based on their distinct needs, backgrounds, and previous experiences—requiring tailored information to make more informed decisions.

Physician-Rating Websites and Social Media Usage: A Global Survey of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons: AOA Critical Issues

The relationship between orthopaedic surgeons and the internet is complicated. Social media allows surgeons to educate their patients while marketing to them at the same time. Conversely, patients are able to better communicate with their surgeons while anonymously rating their service and expertise. This study aims to look at the complex relationship between surgeons and social media use.

Social media use by shoulder and elbow surgeons increases the number of ratings on physician review websites

BACKGROUND

The use of physician review websites by patients is increasingly frequent. One potential way for shoulder and elbow surgeons to enhance their online reputation and attract patients is via social media, yet its impact is unknown. This study sought to analyze the effect of social media use on the number of online ratings and overall rating of shoulder and elbow surgeons. We secondarily studied variables affecting social media use.

METHODS

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons directory was probed to identify practicing surgeons. Surgeon evaluation data, including ratings, comments, and reviews, were compiled from 3 physician review websites (Google, Healthgrades, and Vitals). Google was queried to assess for a professional Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram account, as well as obtain information on surgeon training, practice location, and other demographic variables.

RESULTS

A total of 646 surgeons met the inclusion criteria (93.8% male and 6.2% female surgeons). Overall, 37% had a professional social media account (Facebook, 23.1%; Twitter, 24.1%; and Instagram, 9.4%). Linear regression analysis showed that Facebook use correlated with an average increase of 48.6 in the number of ratings. No social media platform correlated with physician rating. The surgeons more likely to use social media were those who graduated residency in 2000 or later (40.8% vs. 29.2%), those who practiced in cities with higher populations (mean, 1188.9 vs. 708.4 [per 1000]), and those with more surgeons practicing in the same city (mean, 7.0 vs. 5.0).

CONCLUSION

The majority of shoulder and elbow surgeons do not have a professional social media account. Those using this platform are younger and located in more populous cities with more competition. Having a professional social media profile was not correlated with ratings, but there was a positive association with the number of online ratings, and Facebook had the strongest association. Surgeon ratings are overwhelmingly positive with minimal variability; therefore, a high number of ratings confirms a surgeon's exceptional reputation. The residency graduation year, city population, and number of nearby surgeons affected ratings, although the absolute differences were minimal. For shoulder and elbow surgeons, a professional social media account correlates with an increase in the number of online physician ratings. Recent graduates practicing in competitive locations may feel increased pressure to leverage this in an attempt to build their practices.

Marketing Your Practice: Setting Yourself Apart in a Competitive Market, Online Reputation Building, and Managing Patient Experience/Satisfaction

The days of making a first impression when you meet your patients in person are numbered. Rather, in today's digital age, your prospective patients have likely already formed opinions about you and your practice before they meet you. And these opinions are largely influenced by the information they discover about you online. While you cannot completely control your personal brand or reputation as a physician, you can certainly try by controlling your online narrative: communicate your expertise and your value by effectively using social media, by regularly updating your practice website, and by proactively managing patient satisfaction reflected on physician rating websites. Set yourself apart in a competitive market today by building a strong digital presence.

Examining Different Factors in Web-Based Patients' Decision-Making Process: Systematic Review on Digital Platforms for Clinical Decision Support System

(1) Background: The appearance of physician rating websites (PRWs) has raised researchers’ interest in the online healthcare field, particularly how users consume information available on PRWs in terms of online physician reviews and providers’ information in their decision-making process. The aim of this study is to consistently review the early scientific literature related to digital healthcare platforms, summarize key findings and study features, identify literature deficiencies, and suggest digital solutions for future research. (2) Methods: A systematic literature review using key databases was conducted to search published articles between 2010 and 2020 and identified 52 papers that focused on PRWs, different signals in the form of PRWs’ features, the findings of these studies, and peer-reviewed articles. The research features and main findings are reported in tables and figures. (3) Results: The review of 52 papers identified 22 articles for online reputation, 15 for service popularity, 16 for linguistic features, 15 for doctor–patient concordance, 7 for offline reputation, and 11 for trustworthiness signals. Out of 52 studies, 75% used quantitative techniques, 12% employed qualitative techniques, and 13% were mixed-methods investigations. The majority of studies retrieved larger datasets using machine learning techniques (44/52). These studies were mostly conducted in China (38), the United States (9), and Europe (3). The majority of signals were positively related to the clinical outcomes. Few studies used conventional surveys of patient treatment experience (5, 9.61%), and few used panel data (9, 17%). These studies found a high degree of correlation between these signals with clinical outcomes. (4) Conclusions: PRWs contain valuable signals that provide insights into the service quality and patient treatment choice, yet it has not been extensively used for evaluating the quality of care. This study offers implications for researchers to consider digital solutions such as advanced machine learning and data mining techniques to test hypotheses regarding a variety of signals on PRWs for clinical decision-making.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the Arab world: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Arab region is highly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Local governments have already started to act against the disease. However, only a few countries provided COVID-19 vaccination. Compliance with vaccination is a major topic affecting proper coverage. Thus, we aim to explore vaccine acceptance among Arab populations, and compare it with the global numbers.

METHODS

An internet-based survey using social media platforms was conducted, targeting adults who were able to read and understand Arabic, had access to the internet, and from all 22 Arab league countries. Due to the response rate variation between participants, the countries were grouped into four categories based on their income: Low income, Lower-middle income, Upper-middle income, and High-income economies. Data about demographics, previous COVID-19 infection, and vaccine acceptance tendency were collected and analyzed using Chi-squared (χ2) test and Logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 870 participants completed the survey. 59.3% of the participants were male, 53.3% were between 25 and 44 years, and 69.9% were Arabs who live inside of their home country. The COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 62.4%. A significant higher tendency toward vaccination was identified in males (65.4%, P = 0.04) and people living outside their home countries (67.9%, P = 0.02). However, age group, level of education, and previous COVID-19 infection were all factors with insignificant effect. Citizens of High-income countries were more likely to accept the vaccine (70.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than two-thirds of Arabs are compliant with COVID-19 vaccination. This proportion is relatively lower than the global rate. It is important to develop strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and reach the ideal coverage needed to achieve efficient immunization.

Factors Affecting Orthopedic Sports Medicine Surgeons' Online Reputation

Physician rating websites (PRWs) rate physicians based on experiences of previous patients. Although a high rating is desirable, it may not correlate with quality of care, experience, or other physician-specific variables. This study examined the impact of physician-specific variables, such as American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Certificate of Added Qualification (CAQ) status, years in practice, sex, and geographic location, on the PRW patient satisfaction rating and number of ratings. A list of orthopedic sports medicine surgeons was obtained from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine database. Demographic data were recorded. Surgeon profiles were gathered from the most commonly used PRWs (Healthgrades and Vitals), and a mean rating value was recorded on a 1- to 5-star scale. The t test and analysis of variance were used for comparisons. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors contributing to PRW ratings. Female sex had the biggest positive effect on PRW rating (R=0.04, P=.029). The PRW rating was positively affected by the number of ratings (R=0.04, P<.001) and negatively affected by an increase in years of practice (R=0.04, P<.001). Surgeons with fewer than 10 years in practice had higher PRW ratings than surgeons practicing longer than 10 years. The PRW ratings were not affected by sports CAQ status or geographic location. Fewer years in practice, female sex, and greater number of reviews were associated with higher PRW ratings. Number of reviews was the only modifiable factor. There was no observed association between sports medicine CAQ status and PRW rating. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(2):e281-e286.].

Comparison of Internal Patient Satisfaction Scores at a Cancer Center With Star Ratings on Online Physician-Rating Websites

PURPOSE

Patients have been increasingly using physician-rating websites (PRWs); however, few studies have analyzed the validity of star ratings on PRWs. We aimed to compare PRW patient satisfaction scores with internally generated patient satisfaction scores (internal scores) of physicians at a large quaternary cancer center.

METHODS

We collected internal scores and PRW scores for physicians at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Internal scores were based on patient responses to the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient experience (CG-CAHPS) survey. Only physicians with an internal score on the basis of ≥ 30 patient reviews were included. The median numbers of reviews and median scores were compared between internal data and four PRWs (Google, HealthGrades, Vitals, and WebMD). Both internally and on PRWs, possible scores ranged from 1 (least satisfied) to 5 (most satisfied).

RESULTS

Of 640 physicians with an internal score, 510 (79.7%) met the inclusion criteria. For these 510 physicians, the median (IQR) number of internal reviews was 49.5 (30-93) and the median (IQR) internal score was 4.89 (4.81-4.93); the median number of reviews on PRWs ranged from 2 to 7, and the median score on PRWs ranged from 4.40 to 5.00. No physician had an internal score < 4, but the proportions with score < 4 on PRWs ranged from 16% to 30%.

CONCLUSION

Internal patient satisfaction scores were higher and calculated from more reviews than PRW patient satisfaction scores and correlated weakly with PRW scores. Given that patients rely on PRWs when evaluating potential physicians, we recommend publishing internal scores online to give patients more complete information regarding physician performance.

Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, online physician-rating websites have become prominent and exert considerable influence on patients' decisions. However, the quality of these decisions depends on the quality of data that these systems collect. Thus, there is a need to examine the various data quality issues with physician-rating websites.

OBJECTIVE

This study's objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literature on online patient-reported physician ratings and reviews.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 423 articles were screened. From these, 49 papers describing 18 unique data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites were included. Using a data quality framework, we classified these issues into the following four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessible. Among the papers, 53% (26/49) reported intrinsic data quality errors, 61% (30/49) highlighted contextual data quality issues, 8% (4/49) discussed representational data quality issues, and 27% (13/49) emphasized accessibility data quality. More than half the papers discussed multiple categories of data quality issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review demonstrate the presence of a range of data quality issues. While intrinsic and contextual factors have been well-researched, accessibility and representational issues warrant more attention from researchers, as well as practitioners. In particular, representational factors, such as the impact of inline advertisements and the positioning of positive reviews on the first few pages, are usually deliberate and result from the business model of physician-rating websites. The impact of these factors on data quality has not been addressed adequately and requires further investigation.

Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings

Background

Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments.

Methods

The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues.

Results

Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician’s communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician’s caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician’s friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%).

Conclusions

It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

Online Ratings of Facial Plastic Surgeons: Worthwhile Additions to Conventional Patient Experience Surveys

Background: Physician review websites are now commonly used by patients. However, in facial plastic surgery, the trends and content in these websites are not well studied. We examined online reviews for U.S. facial plastic surgeons, and compared comment content with the most commonly used patient experience survey, the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) administered by Press Ganey. Methods: A retrospective mixed method study was employed to quantitatively compare online ratings and comments of 100 randomly selected U.S. facial plastic surgeons on vitals.com, healthgrades.com, google.com and zocdoc.com. Qualitative content analysis was utilized to categorize themes present in 957 patient-generated (unverified) comments, and compare these with CAHPS survey questions and themes. Results: The physician review websites had favorable ratings of facial plastic surgeons with 84.55% five-star reviews on Healthgrades and 78.40% on Vitals. These ratings were similar across surgeon age (p = 0.44), gender (p = 0.85), and geographic region (p = 0.29). Of sites examined, Healthgrades and Vitals were most frequently used. Analysis of patient comments identified themes aligning with CAHPS content (e.g., physician interactions, efficiency, and recommendation likelihood), as well as additional themes such as patient's outcome perception (55.28% of comments) and finances (86% of negatively rated reviews). Conclusions: These exploratory results suggest that facial plastic surgeons are generally rated positively online, and the comments left on these websites provide additional feedback that is not currently included in CAHPS surveys. In evaluating the patient experience with facial plastic surgery practices, these websites may prove to be useful.

Physicians' Earnings Do Not Affect Their Online Ratings

Objective: Physician-rating websites have exploded in popularity in recent years. Consequently, these sites have garnered attention from researchers interested in factors influencing patient satisfaction. A doctor's earnings might reflect practice patterns that could influence their patients' perceptions. We sought to explore any association between physicians' earnings and their online ratings. Methods: The names and billings of 500 physicians from British Columbia, Canada were randomly extracted from the 2016-17 BC Blue Book and matched to their profiles on RateMDs.com. Physicians' earnings were compared to their global ratings and to their Staff, Punctuality, Helpfulness, and Knowledge scores. Earnings and ratings were also compared between men and women, as well as between family medicine, surgical, and internal medicine and subspecialties cohorts. Results: We found no significant correlation between physicians' earnings and their global online ratings (p = 0.304). Weak negative correlations existed between earnings and Staff and Helpfulness ratings (Spearman's rho = -0.055, p < 0.001; rho = -0.033, p < 0.028). Online ratings were largely favorable (mean MD rating of 3.85/5. Male physicians earned significantly more than their female colleagues ($371,734.85 and $261,590.82, respectively; p < 0.001), but no significant difference existed between men and women with regards to online ratings (mean 3.87 and 3.81, respectively, p = 0.191). Surgical and Family Medicine specialties showed a negative correlation between income and ratings; no relationship was seen in the internal medicine and subspecialties cohort. Conclusions: No meaningful association was found between physicians' earnings and their online ratings, although there is an impact of specialty grouping. Patients tend to review doctors favorably online; these data add to the discussion of whether male and female doctors are differentially rated. Trends toward increased transparency in health care systems may help to elucidate how doctors' earnings influence patients' perception of and satisfaction with the care they receive.

Factors Associated With the Actual Behavior and Intention of Rating Physicians on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Although online physician rating information is popular among Chinese health consumers, the limited number of reviews greatly hampers the effective usage of this information. To date, little has been discussed on the variables that influence online physician rating from the users' perspective.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the factors associated with the actual behavior and intention of generating online physician rating information in urban China.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted, and the valid responses of 1371 Chinese health consumers were recorded. Using a pilot interview, we analyzed the effects of demographics, health variables, cognitive variables, and technology-related variables on online physician rating information generation. Binary multivariate logistic regression, multiple linear regression, one-way analysis of variance analyses, and independent samples t test were performed to analyze the rating behavior and the intentions of the health consumers. The survey instrument was designed based on the existing literature and the pilot interview.

RESULTS

In this survey, 56.7% (778/1371) of the responders used online physician rating information, and 20.9% (287/1371) of the responders rated the physicians on the physician rating website at least once (posters). The actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors and was significantly associated with seeking web-based physician information (odds ratio [OR] 5.548, 95% CI 3.072-10.017; P<.001), usage of web-based physician service (OR 2.771, 95% CI 1.979-3.879; P<.001), health information-seeking ability (OR 1.138, 95% CI 0.993-1.304; P=.04), serious disease development (OR 2.699, 95% CI 1.889-3.856; P<.001), good medical experience (OR 2.149, 95% CI 1.473-3.135; P<.001), altruism (OR 0.612, 95% CI 0.483-0.774; P<.001), self-efficacy (OR 1.453, 95% CI 1.182-1.787; P<.001), and trust in online physician rating information (OR 1.315, 95% CI 1.089-1.586; P=.004). Some factors influencing the intentions of the posters and nonposters rating the physicians were different, and the rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking web-based physician information (β=.486; P=.007), using web-based medical service (β=.420; P=.002), ability to seek health information (β=.193; P=.002), rating habits (β=.105; P=.02), altruism (β=.414; P<.001), self-efficacy (β=.102; P=.06), trust (β=.351; P<.001), and perceived ease of use (β=.275; P<.001) served as significant predictors of the rating intention. For nonposters, ability to seek health information (β=.077; P=.003), chronic disease development (β=.092; P=.06), bad medical experience (β=.047; P=.02), rating habits (β=.085; P<.001), altruism (β=.411; P<.001), self-efficacy (β=.171; P<.001), trust (β=.252; P<.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians (β=.109; P<.001) were significantly associated with the rating intention.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that different factors affected the physician rating behavior and rating intention. Health-related variables influenced the physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were critical in the rating intentions. We have proposed some practical implications for physician rating websites and physicians to promote online physician rating information generation.

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

BACKGROUND

Physician rating websites are commonly used by the public, yet the relationship between web-based physician ratings and health care quality is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to use physician disciplinary convictions as an extreme marker for poor physician quality and to investigate whether disciplined physicians have lower ratings than nondisciplined matched controls.

METHODS

This was a retrospective national observational study of all disciplined physicians in Canada (751 physicians, 2000 to 2013). We searched ratings (2005-2015) from the country's leading online physician rating website for this group, and for 751 matched controls according to gender, specialty, practice years, and location. We compared overall ratings (out of a score of 5) as well as mean ratings by the type of misconduct. We also compared ratings for each type of misconduct and punishment.

RESULTS

There were 62.7% (471/751) of convicted and disciplined physicians (cases) with web-based ratings and 64.6% (485/751) of nondisciplined physicians (controls) with ratings. Of 312 matched case-control pairs, disciplined physicians were rated lower than controls overall (3.62 vs 4.00; P<.001). Disciplined physicians had lower ratings for all types of misconduct and punishment-except for physicians disciplined for sexual offenses (n=90 pairs; 3.83 vs 3.86; P=.81). Sexual misconduct was the only category in which mean ratings for physicians were higher than those for other disciplined physicians (3.63 vs 3.35; P=.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians convicted for disciplinary misconduct generally had lower web-based ratings. Physicians convicted of sexual misconduct did not have lower ratings and were rated higher than other disciplined physicians. These findings may have future implications for the identification of physicians providing poor-quality care.

Social Media Presence Correlated with Improved Online Review Scores for Spine Surgeons

BACKGROUND

In the next decade, health care reimbursement will be more aligned to patient clinical outcomes. These outcomes are influenced by the patient's perceived opinion of his or her care. An evaluation into the role of surgeon demographics, social media (SM) accessibility, and office wait times was conducted to identify correlations with these among 3 online review platforms.

METHODS

A total of 206 (148 orthopedic, 58 neurosurgery trained) spine surgeons were included. Spine surgeon ratings and demographics data from 3 physician rating websites (Healthgrades.com [HG], Vitals.com, Google.com [G]) were collected in November 2019. Using the first 10 search results from G we then identified if the surgeons had publicly accessible Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram (IG) accounts.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 54.3 years (±9.40 years), and 28.2% had one form of publicly accessible SM. Having any SM was significantly correlated with higher scores on HG and G. An IG account was associated with significantly higher scores on all 3 platforms, and having a Facebook account correlated with significantly higher scores on HG in multivariate analysis. An office wait time between 16 and 30 minutes and >30 minutes was associated with worse scores on all 3 platforms (all P < 0.05). An academic practice was associated with higher scores on all 3 platforms (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter office wait time and an academic setting practice are associated with higher patient satisfaction scores on all 3 physician review websites. Accessible SM accounts are also associated with higher ratings on physician review websites, particularly IG.

What Patients Value in Physicians: Analyzing Drivers of Patient Satisfaction Using Physician-Rating Website Data

BACKGROUND

Customer-oriented health care management and patient satisfaction have become important for physicians to attract patients in an increasingly competitive environment. Satisfaction influences patients' choice of physician and leads to higher patient retention and higher willingness to engage in positive word of mouth. In addition, higher satisfaction has positive effects on patients' willingness to follow the advice given by the physician. In recent years, physician-rating websites (PRWs) have emerged in the health care sector and are increasingly used by patients. Patients' usage includes either posting an evaluation to provide feedback to others about their own experience with a physician or reading evaluations of other patients before choosing a physician. The emergence of PRWs offers new avenues to analyze patient satisfaction and its key drivers. PRW data enable both satisfaction analyses and implications on the level of the individual physician as well as satisfaction analyses and implications on an overall level.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify linear and nonlinear effects of patients' perceived quality of physician appointment service attributes on the overall evaluation measures that are published on PRWs.

METHODS

We analyzed large-scale survey data from a German PRW containing 84,680 surveys of patients rating a total of 7038 physicians on 24 service attributes and 4 overall evaluation measures. Elasticities are estimated from regression models with perceived attribute quality as explanatory variables and overall evaluation measures as dependent variables. Depending on the magnitude of the elasticity, service attributes are classified into 3 categories: attributes with diminishing, constant, or increasing returns to overall evaluation.

RESULTS

The proposed approach revealed new insights into what patients value when visiting physicians and what they take for granted. Improvements in the physicians' pleasantness and friendliness have increasing returns to the publicly available overall evaluation (b=1.26). The practices' cleanliness (b=1.05) and the communication behavior of a physician during a visit (b level between .97 and 1.03) have constant returns. Indiscretion in the waiting rooms, extended waiting times, and a lack of modernity of the medical equipment (b level between .46 and .59) have the strongest diminishing returns to overall evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The categorization of the service attributes supports physicians in identifying potential for improvements and prioritizing resource allocation to improve the publicly available overall evaluation ratings on PRWs. Thus, the study contributes to patient-centered health care management and, furthermore, promotes the utility of PRWs through large-scale data analysis.

Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Background

Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care.

Objectives

To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts.

Design

A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations.

Setting

The UK.

Methods

We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site.

Results

Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible).

Limitations

This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites.

Conclusions

Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients.

Future work

Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback.

Study registration

The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169.

Funding

This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effects of Online Physician Reviews and Physician Gender on Perceptions of Physician Skills and Primary Care Physician (PCP) Selection

Physician review websites have become more relevant and important in people's selection of physicians. The current study experimentally examined how online physician reviews endorsing a primary care physician's (PCP's) technical or interpersonal skills, along with a physician's gender, may influence people's perceptions of the physician's skills and their willingness to choose the physician. Participants were randomly assigned to view a mockup physician review web page and to imagine that they needed to find a new PCP in a new city. They were then asked to report their perceptions of the physician and willingness to choose the physician as their PCP. The results suggested that people's willingness to choose a PCP was affected by physician reviews through their influence on people's perceptions of the PCP's technical and interpersonal skills. More importantly, this study found that when physician reviews endorsed a PCP's technical skills people perceived a female PCP to be more interpersonally competent than a male PCP and thus were more likely to choose the female PCP. The gendered perception, however, was not extended to a PCP's technical skills. Practical implications for health providers and consumers are discussed.

The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments

Background

The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients’ experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date.

Objective

This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments.

Methods

A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues.

Results

The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs’ comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists.

Conclusions

From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

Online patient feedback: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation to guide health policy

Objective

To provide a synthesis of the current evidence base of online patient feedback using a scoping review and a consultation of stakeholders in England, UK.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Social Science Citation Index and conducted hand searches up to January 2018. We included primary studies of internet-based reviews and other online feedback (e.g. social media and blogs) from patients, carers or the public about health care providers (individuals, services or organizations). Key findings were extracted and tabulated for further synthesis guided by the themes arising from a stakeholder consultation.

Results

The review found that awareness and usage of online feedback is increasing. Most feedback is about physicians, and is typically positive. Online reviews and ratings are used by some service users to inform choice of provider or treatment while providers tend to be concerned about the validity and representativeness of feedback. Reviewed studies found that those who post feedback are generally not representative of the general population, tending to be younger and more educated, but online feedback does broadly correlate with some other measures of health care quality.

Conclusions

In an increasingly digital society, where citizens provide and use feedback for a range of goods and services, online patient feedback can offer a convenient, low cost and widely accessible mechanism to capture experiences of health care, while being mindful to avoid issues of digital exclusion. This review provides important insights to inform policy development seeking to harness the opportunities offered by online feedback.

Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs.

Methods

In November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician’s quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites.

Results

Overall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland.

Conclusions

It appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

The Impact of Web-Based Ratings on Patient Choice of a Primary Care Physician Versus a Specialist: Randomized Controlled Experiment

Background

Physician review websites have empowered prospective patients to acquire information about physicians. However, little is known about how Web-based ratings on different aspects of a physician may affect patients’ selection of physicians differently.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) how patients weigh ratings on a physician’s technical skills and interpersonal skills in their selection of physicians and (2) whether and how people’s choice of a primary care physician versus a specialist is affected differently by Web-based ratings.

Methods

A 2×2×2×2 between-subjects experiment was conducted. Over 600 participants were recruited through a crowdsourcing website and randomly assigned to view a mockup physician review Web page that contained information on a physician’s basic information and patients’ ratings. After reviewing the Web page, participants were asked to complete a survey on their perceptions of the physician and willingness to seek health care from the physician.

Results

The results showed that participants were more willing to choose a physician with higher ratings on technical skills than on interpersonal skills compared with a physician with higher ratings on interpersonal skills than on technical skills, t_369.96=22.36, P<.001, Cohen d=1.22. In the selection of different types of physicians, patients were more likely to choose a specialist with higher ratings on technical skills than on interpersonal skills, compared with a primary care physician with the same ratings, F_1,521=5.34, P=.021.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that people place more weight on technical skills than interpersonal skills in their selection of a physician based on their ratings on the Web. Specifically, people are more likely to make a compromise on interpersonal skills in their choice of a specialist compared with a primary care physician. This study emphasizes the importance of examining Web-based physician ratings in a more nuanced way in relation to the selection of different types of physicians.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN91316463; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN91316463

Exploring sociodemographic factors related to practice, attitude, knowledge, and skills concerning evidence-based practice in clinical nursing

AIM

This study aimed to explore sociodemographic factors related to evidence-based practice (EBP) competency in Japanese nurses in university hospitals.

METHODS

In March 2016, a survey was distributed to 843 clinical nurses who directly provide nursing care at two university hospitals in Japan. Multiple regression analyses were conducted on data received from 472 nurses using the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (Japanese version).

RESULTS

Sociodemographic factors related to EBP competency were experience with conducting nursing research as a part of continuing education, education about EBP, advanced practice certification (certified nurse specialists/certified nurses), and years of experience in clinical nursing. These factors differed across the four subscales of the questionnaire: Practice, Attitude, Knowledge of Research and Practice, and Skills of Research and Practice. Specifically, experience with two or more nursing research activities was significantly positively associated with Attitude and Knowledge/Skills Concerning Research and Practice of EBP, but not related to the implementation of EBP itself. Advanced practice certification was significantly positively associated with Practice and Attitude of EBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study quantitatively identified sociodemographic factors including experience with conducting nursing research and advanced practice certification status that were found to be related to EBP competency and these factors were differently associated with the four subscales of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (Japanese version). EBP education should depend on nurses' levels of EBP competency, and nursing educators and managers need to be cognizant of their nurses' sociodemographic factors when providing EBP education.

Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?

Web-based physician ratings are increasingly popular but imperfect proxies for clinical competence. Yet they provide valuable information to patients and providers when taken in proper context. Providers need to embrace the reviews and use them to enact positive change in order to improve the quality of our patients’ experience. Patients need to realize the limitations of online ratings, particularly with smaller sample size and be discerning about the reasons behind the review.

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

Background

The number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients’ choice of health care providers.

Objective

The objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research.

Methods

A major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables.

Results

A total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients’ comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation.

Conclusions

PORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods.

Trial Registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C)

eHealth Literacy and General Interest in Using Online Health Information: A Survey Among Patients with Dental Diseases

Objectives

The aim of the study is to explore the eHealth literacy and general interest in using eHealth information among patients with dental diseases.

Methods

A total of 171 patients with dental diseases completed the survey including the eHEALS. The effect of participants' age, gender and education on eHealth literacy was assessed. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was also used to assess the correlation between the importance of access to health information and the usefulness of the internet for decision-making.

Results

The mean score of eHealth literacy in the participants was 30.55 (SD=4.069). The participants' age has significant effect on eHealth literacy level (t=3.573, P-value=0.002). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between the total score of eHealth literacy and the importance of access to eHealth information (r=0.33, n=171, P<0.s001). The difference in eHealth literacy in terms of educational background showed no statistically significant differences (F=1.179, P-value=0.322).

Discussion

The participants had a high level of eHealth literacy. Determining eHealth literacy among dental patients leads to a better understanding of their problems in health decision-making.

Conclusion

Dental institutions efforts should aim to raise awareness on online health information quality and to encourage patients to use evaluation tools, especially among low electronic health literate patients.

Analysis of Internet Review Site Comments for Spine Surgeons: How Office Staff, Physician Likeability, and Patient Outcome Are Associated With Online Evaluations

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

With the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction scores of spine surgeons using comments from three leading physician rating websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, Google.com. This is the largest review of online comments and the largest review of spine surgeon comments.

METHODS

From the North American Spine Society (NASS) membership directory, 210 spine surgeons practicing in Florida (133 orthopedic trained; 77 neurosurgery trained) with online comments available for review were identified, yielding 4701 patient comments. These were categorized according to subject: (1) surgeon competence, (2) surgeon likeability/character, (3) office staff, ease of scheduling, office environment. Type 1 and 2 comments were surgeon-dependent factors whereas type 3 comments were surgeon-independent factors. Patient comments also reported a score (1-5), 5 being the most favorable and 1 being the least favorable.

RESULTS

There were 1214 (25.8%) comments from Healthgrades, 2839 (60.4%) from Vitals, and 648 (13.8%) from Google. 89.9% (4225) of comments pertained to surgeon outcomes and likeability (comment type 1 and 2), compared with 10.1% (476) surgeon-independent comments (comment type 3) (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher number of favorable ratings associated with surgeon-dependent comments (types 1 and 2) compared with surgeon-independent comments (type 3). Surgeon-independent comments were associated with significantly lower scores compared with comments regarding surgeon-dependent factors on all review sites.

CONCLUSION

Spine surgeons are more likely to receive favorable reviews for factors pertaining to outcomes, likeability/character, and negative reviews based on ancillary staff interactions, billing, and office environment. Surgeons should continue to take an active role in modifying factors patients perceive as negative, even if not directly related to the physician.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians’ quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people’s willingness to rate their physician on PRWs.

Methods

A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail.

Results

Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs.

Conclusion

These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

Patient preferences for objective quality metrics during community pharmacy selection: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Patients select healthcare providers and facilities based on a complex array of factors. Pharmacy-level quality metrics have been discussed as a way to help direct patients towards high-quality pharmacies. Limited research has been conducted on the potential impact of quality metrics on the pharmacy selection process.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure the relative strength of patient preferences for community pharmacy attributes and to describe associations between patient sociodemographic and health characteristics and pharmacy preferences.

METHODS

This study elicited preferences for pharmacy attributes using a discrete choice experiment presenting a scenario in which participants had moved to a new location and needed to select a pharmacy. Six attributes were selected based on published literature, expert opinion, and pilot testing feedback. Attributes were relationship-based (hours of operation, staff friendliness/courtesy, pharmacist communication, pharmacist willingness to establish a personal relationship) or competence-based (overall quality and a drug-drug interaction (DDI) specific quality metric). Participants responded to blocks of 10 random and 2 fixed choice tasks assigned by Sawtooth v9.2. Data were analyzed using conditional logit, and Hierarchical Bayes estimates of individual-level utilities were used to compare preferences across demographic subgroups.

RESULTS

Study participants expressed the strongest preferences for competence-based pharmacy attributes, including DDI-specific and overall quality measures (Attribute Importance Values: 40.3% and 31.3%, respectively). Women ascribed higher utility to 5-star DDI and overall quality ratings than men. Rural respondents and those with inadequate health literacy expressed stronger preferences for patient-pharmacist relationships than those in suburban areas and with adequate health literacy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents exhibited strong preferences for pharmacies with higher competence-based quality ratings, suggesting that they may perceive medication safety to be a key role of community pharmacists. Future research on patient expectations of and preferences for community pharmacies can inform ways to effectively encourage patient engagement with pharmacists to improve health outcomes.

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

BACKGROUND

With the advent and popularity of social media and consumer rating websites, as well as the emergence of the digitally engaged patient, there has been an increased interest in doctor rating websites or online patient feedback websites, both inside and outside academia. However, there is very little known about how the public across England views such rating websites as a mode to give patient experience feedback.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the overall study was to measure and understand public awareness, usage, and attitudes towards doctor rating websites as a mode to give experiential feedback about GPs in general practice in England. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to measure public awareness, current usage and future consideration of usage of online patient feedback websites, within the context of other feedback methods, This could allow the value of online patient feedback websites to be determined from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

A mixed methods population questionnaire was designed, validated and implemented face-to-face using a cross-sectional design with a representative sample of the public (n=844) in England. The results of the questionnaire were analyzed using chi-square tests, binomial logistic regressions, and content analysis. The qualitative results will be reported elsewhere.

RESULTS

Public awareness of online patient feedback websites as a channel to leave experiential feedback about GPs was found to be low at 15.2% (128/844). However, usage and future consideration to use online patient feedback websites were found to be extremely low, with current patient usage at just 0.4% (3/844), and patient intention to use online patient feedback in the future at 17.8% (150/844). Furthermore, only 4.0-5.0% of those who would consider leaving feedback about a GP in the future selected doctor rating websites as their most preferred method; more than half of patients said they would consider leaving feedback about GPs using another method, but not using an online patient feedback website.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that online patient feedback websites may not be an effective channel for collecting feedback on patient experience in general practice. Feedback on online patient feedback websites is not likely to be representative of the patient experience in the near future, challenging the use of online patient feedback not just as a mode for collecting patient experience data, but for patient choice and monitoring too. We recommend the National Health Service channels its investment and resources towards providing more direct and private feedback methods in general practice (such as opportunities for face-to-face feedback, email-based feedback, and web-based private feedback forms), as these are currently much more likely to be used by the majority of patients in England.

Patients' Awareness, Usage and Impact of Hospital Report Cards in the US

BACKGROUND

Little knowledge is available about the importance of hospital report cards in the US from the patients' perspective. It also remains unknown whether specific report cards with a stronger emphasis on clinical measures have a greater impact on hospital choice than general report cards that focus on online-derived ratings.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the awareness and usage of hospital report cards as well as their impact on hospital choice in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study by surveying a stratified online sample (N = 1332) to ensure representativeness to the US online population (February 2015).

RESULTS

Overall, 75% of all respondents (mean age 45.4 years; 54% female) were aware of hospital report cards. Among these, 56% had used a report card to search for a hospital, and 80% of report card users stated having been influenced by a report card. Both the awareness and usage of general report cards were shown to be higher than for specific report cards. No significant differences could be detected regarding the impact between general or specific report cards on hospital choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that hospital report cards play a considerable role among patients when searching for a hospital in the US; however, patients do not seem to have a preference regarding the type of report cards they use when selecting a hospital.

Factors Impacting Online Ratings for Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with online patient ratings and comments for a nationwide sample of otolaryngologists.

METHODS

Ratings, demographic information, and written comments were obtained for a random sample of otolaryngologists from HealthGrades.com and Vitals.com . Online Presence Score (OPS) was based on 10 criteria, including professional website and social media profiles. Regression analyses identified factors associated with increased rating. We evaluated for correlations between OPS and other attributes with star rating and used chi-square tests to evaluate content differences between positive and negative comments.

RESULTS

On linear regression, increased OPS was associated with higher ratings on HealthGrades and Vitals; higher ratings were also associated with younger age on Vitals and less experience on HealthGrades. However, detailed correlation studies showed weak correlation between OPS and rating; age and graduation year also showed low correlation with ratings. Negative comments more likely focused on surgeon-independent factors or poor bedside manner.

CONCLUSION

Though younger otolaryngologists with greater online presence tend to have higher ratings, weak correlations suggest that age and online presence have only a small impact on the content found on ratings websites. While most written comments are positive, deficiencies in bedside manner or other physician-independent factors tend to elicit negative comments.

Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study

Background

Physician ratings websites have emerged as a novel forum for consumers to comment on their health care experiences. Little is known about such ratings in Canada.

Objective

We investigated the scope and trends for specialty, geographic region, and time for online physician ratings in Canada using a national data source from the country’s leading physician-rating website.

Methods

This observational retrospective study used online ratings data from Canadian physicians (January 2005-September 2013; N=640,603). For specialty, province, and year of rating, we assessed whether physicians were likely to be rated favorably by using the proportion of ratings greater than the overall median rating.

Results

In total, 57,412 unique physicians had 640,603 individual ratings. Overall, ratings were positive (mean 3.9, SD 1.3). On average, each physician had 11.2 (SD 10.1) ratings. By comparing specialties with Canadian Institute of Health Information physician population numbers over our study period, we inferred that certain specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, family practice, surgery, and dermatology) were more commonly rated, whereas others (pathology, radiology, genetics, and anesthesia) were less represented. Ratings varied by specialty; cardiac surgery, nephrology, genetics, and radiology were more likely to be rated in the top 50th percentile, whereas addiction medicine, dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry were more often rated in the lower 50th percentile of ratings. Regarding geographic practice location, ratings were more likely to be favorable for physicians practicing in eastern provinces compared with western and central Canada. Regarding year, the absolute number of ratings peaked in 2007 before stabilizing and decreasing by 2013. Moreover, ratings were most likely to be positive in 2007 and again in 2013.

Conclusions

Physician-rating websites are a relatively novel source of provider-level patient satisfaction and are a valuable source of the patient experience. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, particularly regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time.