Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards

BACKGROUND

Report cards can help consumers make an informed decision when searching for a long-term care facility.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the current state of web-based public reporting on long-term care facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

We conducted an internet search for report cards, which allowed for a nationwide search for long-term care facilities and provided freely accessible quality information. On the included report cards, we drew a sample of 1320 facility profiles by searching for long-term care facilities in 4 US and 2 UK cities. Based on those profiles, we analyzed the information provided by the included report cards descriptively.

RESULTS

We found 40 report cards (26 in the United States and 14 in the United Kingdom). In total, 11 of them did not state the source of information. Additionally, 7 report cards had an advanced search field, 24 provided simplification tools, and only 3 had a comparison function. Structural quality information was always provided, followed by consumer feedback on 27 websites, process quality on 15 websites, prices on 12 websites, and outcome quality on 8 websites. Inspection results were always displayed as composite measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, the identified report cards have deficits. To make them more helpful for users and to bring public reporting a bit closer to its goal of improving the quality of health care services, both countries are advised to concentrate on optimizing the existing report cards. Those should become more transparent and improve the reporting of prices and consumer feedback. Advanced search, simplification tools, and comparison functions should be integrated more widely.

What Makes a 5-Star Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeon? An Analysis of Positive Online Patient Reviews

Background

The increased focus on patient satisfaction has led to growth in the use of physician rating websites.

Purpose

To analyze the factors associated with online 5-star patient reviews for orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

A total of 70 orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were randomly selected from the AOSSM website. A search was performed for these surgeons on Yelp.com. All reviews other than 5 stars (of a possible 5 stars) were excluded from the study. Each review was categorized as referring to a surgical or nonsurgical aspect of care, and each comment within the review was categorized as being clinically or nonclinically related. Comments were further subcategorized by specific features such as bedside manner, clinical outcomes, and patient education. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test.

Results

Overall, 400 five-star reviews were included in the study, comprising 1225 total positive comments. Of the 400 five-star reviews, 200 (50%) were from surgically treated patients, and 200 (50%) were from nonsurgically treated patients. Of the 1225 positive comments, 505 (41%) were clinically related, and 720 (59%) were nonclinical. The most common positive clinical comments were for clear treatment plans (191 reviews [48%]), good outcomes (173 reviews [43%]), and providing alternative treatment plans (55 reviews [14%]). The most common positive nonclinical comments were for good physician bedside manner (287 reviews [72%]), friendly/professional staff (194 reviews [49%]), and ease of scheduling (68 reviews [17%]).

Conclusion

The majority of 5-star patient reviews left positive comments regarding nonclinical aspects of care such as physician bedside manner and friendly staff. The most common positive comments regarding clinical aspects concerned good outcomes and clear treatment plans. The overall most common positive comment, in both surgically and nonsurgically treated patients, referred to good bedside manner.

What Satisfies Parents of Pediatric Patients in China: A Grounded Theory Building Analysis of Online Physician Reviews

Patient satisfaction is an important intermediate outcome of patient-provider encounters, linking face-to-face interactions between patients and medical professionals with patients' well-being after consultations. Today, physician review websites provide a new venue for the study of patient satisfaction, as patients are utilizing such websites to evaluate their encounters with physicians. This study examined how parents of pediatric patients in China evaluated their pediatricians and factors associated with patient satisfaction through a qualitative content analysis of reviews (n = 7230) on the "Good Doctor Website" (haodf.com), China's largest physician review platform. Reviews were chosen from all reviews of pediatricians in eight top-tier hospitals in four major cities. Three dimensions of patient satisfaction were identified: pediatricians' interpersonal manners (including friendliness, listening to patients, heartfelt encouragement, and clear explanation), ethics (including rejecting red envelopes and kickbacks and cost awareness), and medical competence/overall health outcome. This study contributes to a culturally sensitive understanding of patient satisfaction and further explains the tense physician-patient relationship in China. Practically, our findings can inform the training of pediatricians in China.

[Public Reporting on long-term Care Facilities in Germany: Current State and Evaluation of Quality Information]

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about public reporting on long-term care facilities. In this study, we (1) identify the websites that are available for a search on long-term care facilities in Germany, (2) describe them systematically with regard to general information and range of functions, 3) capture the information on quality available on the websites and 4) evaluate the extent to which they can be useful for those in need.

METHODS

1) Systematic internet search to identify the websites. 2) Analysis of the websites with regard to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 3) Data collection from the included websites. 4) Description of the general content and the range of functions of the websites. 5) Collection of quality-related information on long-term care facilities (structure, process and outcome quality, costs, quality inspections results, user feedback). 6) Evaluation of the usefulness of information by analyzing the information using a catalogue of criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 24 websites were identified with information on long-term care facilities. Only 4 websites allowed a direct online comparison of several facilities and 17% allowed consumer feedback online. All websites provided information on structural quality, but none on the outcome quality. Across all websites, the usefulness of information for the consumers amounted to 19%. The thematic area on location and accessibility of a facility offered relatively detailed information (79%), while only to 9% was dedicated to the thematic area on care.

CONCLUSION

There is a large number of websites that can be searched for information on long-term care facilities. They show a range of heterogeneous functions and information. More websites should offer a function of comparison of multiple facilities. With regard to the information available, consumer preferences do not yet seem to be sufficiently taken into account. Further researches should focus on the evaluation of the impact of outcome quality on decision-making and the analysis of the validity of consumer feedback.

Ethnic and gender-based prejudice towards medical doctors? The relationship between physicians' ethnicity, gender, and ratings on a physician rating website

We investigated manifestations of ethnic and gender-based prejudice in a rather understudied high-status environment, that is we studied biased ratings of physicians with a migration background and female physicians. In a preregistered, archival study, we analyzed ratings of more than 140,000 physicians on a German rating website for medical professionals. Results indicate that general practitioners (but not dentists or specialists) with non-German names are rated less favorably than general practitioners with German names. This effect did not vary across regional contexts with varying prosperity and diversity. Our analyses also revealed that female physicians are evaluated less positively than male physicians. Contrary to our assumptions, bias against female physicians was especially strong in medical sub-disciplines that are characterized by a high share of female physicians.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

Background

Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.

Objective

We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.

Methods

We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.

Results

From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 (“excellent”) (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 (“poor”) (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.

Conclusions

In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.

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)

The Effect of Online Effort and Reputation of Physicians on Patients' Choice: 3-Wave Data Analysis of China's Good Doctor Website

Background

Nowadays, patients are seeking physician information more frequently via the internet. Physician-rating websites (PRWs) have been recognized as the most convenient way to gain insight and detailed information about specific physicians before receiving consultation. However, little is known about how the information provided on PRWs may affect patients’ decisions to seek medical advice.

Objective

This study aimed to examine whether the physicians’ online efforts and their reputation have a relationship with patients’ choice of physician on PRWs.

Methods

A model, based on social exchange theory, was developed to analyze the factors associated with the number of online patients. A 3-wave data collection exercise, covering 4037 physicians on China’s Good Doctor website, was conducted during the months of February, April, and June 2017. Increases in consultation in a 60-day period were used as the dependent variable, whereas 2 series of data were analyzed using linear regression modeling. The fixed-effect model was used to analyze the 3-wave data.

Results

The adjusted R² value in the linear regression models were 0.28 and 0.27, whereas in the fixed-effect model, it was .30. Both the linear regression and fixed-effect models yielded a good fit. A positive effect of physicians’ effort on the aggregated number of online patients was identified in all models (R²=0.30 and R²=0.37 in 2 regression models; R²=0.23 in fixed effect model; P<.001). The proxies of physicians’ reputations indicated different results, with total number of page views of physicians’ homepages (R²=0.43 and R²=0.46; R²=0.16; P<.001) and number of votes received (R²=0.33 and R²=0.27; R²=0.43; P<.001) being seen as positive. Virtual gifts were not significant in all models, whereas thank-you messages were only significant in the fixed-effect model (R²=0.11; P=.02). The effort made by physicians online is positively associated with their aggregated number of patients consulted, whereas the effect of a physician’s reputation remains uncertain. The control effect of a physician’s title and hospital’s level was not significant in all linear regressions.

Conclusions

Both the effort and reputation of physicians online contribute to the increased number of online patients’ consultation; however, the influence of a physician’s reputation varies. This may imply that physicians’ online effort and reputation are critical in attracting patients and that strategic manipulation of physician profiles is worthy of study. Practical insights are also discussed.

Do German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, many different performance frameworks and quality assurance systems have been developed to measure health care quality. In Germany, an external quality assurance system for hospitals was introduced in 2005. The data of these systems are often reported by public reporting websites (PRWs) to inform patients and other stakeholders interested in health care systems about health care providers' quality. However, publication is obligatory (at least in Germany) for most of the existing quality assurance measures; some may be reported voluntarily. An important target group for this information is the group of all office-based physicians as they are crucial for patients' hospital choice. However, public reporting initiatives in Germany and other countries have not increased the use of quality reports for hospital choice.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To summarize the criteria that office-based physicians consider to be of high, medium, and low importance for hospital selection when referring patients and (2) to examine whether German public reporting websites (PRWs) provide these hospital-related criteria.

METHODS

The analysis comprised four steps: 1) Five databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed English- and German-language literature. 2) The selection of articles was based on compliance with inclusion criteria, and all the criteria relevant to the referral of patients to hospital were extracted. 3) The criteria were then divided into five main categories: structural quality, process quality, outcome quality, patient experience, and referring physicians' experience. In addition, the criteria were classified into three importance categories (high-, medium-, and low-priority criteria) according to their relevance to the referral decision. 4) We investigated whether German PRWs publicly report high-priority criteria.

RESULTS

A total of N=11 articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. The studies were published in Germany (n=4), the Netherlands (n=3), Denmark, France, Norway, and the USA (n=1 each). In total, N=86 criteria were identified, most of them relating to structural quality (n=43) and process quality (n=26). We found just n=3 outcome quality criteria, only one of which fell in the high-priority category (breast cancer indicators with clinically relevant differences). In total, n=25 low-, n=40 medium-, and n=34 high-priority criteria could be established, which is due to the fact that some criteria had been investigated in several studies evaluating the importance of some criteria differently. Most of the high-priority criteria were related to process quality. All the high-priority structural quality criteria and high-priority outcome quality criteria were available on German PRWs, whereas just 38.5 % of those relating to process quality could be identified on these portals. We also identified 66.7 % of the high-priority criteria regarding patient experience and 50.0 % concerning the referring physicians' experience. Overall, a larger amount of low- and medium-priority criteria are available on German PRWs than high-priority criteria.

DISCUSSION

A substantial amount of hospital information regarding structural quality and outcome quality is available on German PRWs. However, the development of further process quality criteria (which are currently underrepresented) should be considered, for example whether hospital physicians continue the medication initiated by office-based doctors. Also, hospital quality reports should be tailored for specific user groups, for instance for referring gynecologists or referring general practitioners (GPs).

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.

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.

Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.

METHODS

A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.

RESULTS

The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.

Online physician review websites poorly correlate to a validated metric of patient satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Physician review websites such as Vitals and Healthgrades are becoming an increasingly popular tool for patients to choose providers. We hypothesized that the scores of these surveys poorly represent the true value of patient satisfaction when compared to a validated survey instrument.

METHODS

Answers from Vitals and Healthgrades online surveys were compared to the Press Ganey Medical Practice Survey (PGMPS) for 200 faculty members at a university hospital for FY15. Weighted Pearson's correlation was used to compare Healthgrades and Vitals to PGMPS.

RESULTS

While statistically significant, both Vitals and Healthgrades had very low correlations with the PGMPS with weighted coefficients of 0.18 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.34, P = 0.025) and 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.42, P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Online physician rating websites such as Vitals and Healthgrades poorly correlate with the PGMPS, a validated measure of patient satisfaction. Patients should be aware of these limitations and, consequently, should have access to the most accurate measure of patient satisfaction.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and clinical quality of care measures for US hospitals: results from an observational study

Background

Little is known about the usefulness of online ratings when searching for a hospital. We therefore assess the association between quantitative and qualitative online ratings for US hospitals and clinical quality of care measures.

Methods

First, we collected a stratified random sample of 1000 quantitative and qualitative online ratings for hospitals from the website RateMDs. We used an integrated iterative approach to develop a categorization scheme to capture both the topics and sentiment in the narrative comments. Next, we matched the online ratings with hospital-level quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Regarding nominally scaled measures, we checked for differences in the distribution among the online rating categories. For metrically scaled measures, we applied the Spearman rank coefficient of correlation.

Results

Thirteen of the twenty-nine quality of care measures were significantly associated with the quantitative online ratings (Spearman p = ±0.143, p < 0.05 for all). Thereof, eight associations indicated better clinical outcomes for better online ratings. Seven of the twenty-nine clinical measures were significantly associated with the sentiment of patient narratives (p = ±0.114, p < 0.05 for all), whereof four associations indicated worse clinical outcomes in more favorable narrative comments.

Conclusions

There seems to be some association between quantitative online ratings and clinical performance measures. However, the relatively weak strength and inconsistency of the direction of the association as well as the lack of association with several other clinical measures may not enable the drawing of strong conclusions. Narrative comments also seem to have limited potential to reflect the clinical quality of care in its current form. Thus, online ratings are of limited usefulness in guiding patients towards high-performing hospitals from a clinical point of view. Nevertheless, patients might prefer different aspects of care when choosing a hospital.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2886-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unhappy Patients Are Not Alike: Content Analysis of the Negative Comments from China's Good Doctor Website

BACKGROUND

With the rise in popularity of Web 2.0 technologies, the sharing of patient experiences about physicians on online forums and medical websites has become a common practice. However, negative comments posted by patients are considered to be more influential by other patients and physicians than those that are satisfactory.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze negative comments posted online about physicians and to identify possible solutions to improve patient satisfaction, as well as their relationship with physicians.

METHODS

A Java-based program was developed to collect patient comments on the Good Doctor website, one of the most popular online health communities in China. A total of 3012 negative comments concerning 1029 physicians (mean 2.93 [SD 4.14]) from 5 highly ranked hospitals in Beijing were extracted for content analysis. An initial coding framework was constructed with 2 research assistants involved in the codification.

RESULTS

Analysis, based on the collected 3012 negative comments, revealed that unhappy patients are not alike and that their complaints cover a wide range of issues experienced throughout the whole process of medical consultation. Among them, physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology (606/3012, 20.12%; P=.001) and Internal Medicine (487/3012, 16.17%; P=.80) received the most negative comments. For negative comments per physician, Dermatology and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (mean 5.72, P<.001) and Andrology (mean 5, P=.02) ranked the highest. Complaints relating to insufficient medical consultation duration (577/3012, 19.16%), physician impatience (527/3012, 17.50%), and perceived poor therapeutic effect (370/3012, 12.28%) received the highest number of negative comments. Specific groups of people, such as those accompanying older patients or children, traveling patients, or very important person registrants, were shown to demonstrate little tolerance for poor medical service.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of online patient complaints provides an innovative approach to understand factors associated with patient dissatisfaction. The outcomes of this study could be of benefit to hospitals or physicians seeking to improve their delivery of patient-centered services. Patients are expected to be more understanding of overloaded physicians' workloads, which are impacted by China's stretched medical resources, as efforts are made to build more harmonious physician-patient relationships.

[Do online ratings reflect structural differences in healthcare? The example of German physician-rating websites]

BACKGROUND

Previous surveys have shown that patient satisfaction varies with the regional supply of physicians. Online ratings on physician-rating websites represent a relatively new instrument to display patient satisfaction results. The aim of this study was (1) to assess the current state of online ratings for two medical disciplines (dermatologists and ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists), and (2) to analyze online derived patient satisfaction results according to the physician density in Germany.

METHODS

We collected online ratings for 420 dermatologists and 450 ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists on twelve German physician-rating websites. We analyzed the online ratings according to the physician density (low, medium, high physician density). For this purpose, we collected secondary data from both physician-rating websites and the regional associations of statutory health insurance physicians. Data analysis was performed using Median tests and Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In total, 10,239 online ratings for dermatologists and 8,168 online ratings for ENT specialists were analyzed. Almost all dermatologists (99.3 %) and ENT specialists (98.9 %) were listed on one of the physician-rating websites. A total of 93.5 % of all listed dermatologists and 96.9 % of ENT-specialists were rated on at least one of the physician-rating websites. Significant differences were found in the distribution (i.e., percentage of listed or rated physicians) of the ratings according to the regional physician density on only one physician-rating website (p<0.001). Furthermore, online ratings were shown to be better in regions with a higher physician density on two physician-rating website. On jameda.de, for example, dermatologist ratings were better in regions with a higher physician density compared to regions with a lower number of physicians (average rating: 2.16 vs. 2.67; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Online ratings of dermatologists and ENT specialists hardly differ in terms of regional physician density. Physician-rating websites thus do not appear to be appropriate to mirror differences in the health service delivery structure. Our findings thus do not confirm the results from previously published studies.

Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants’ attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician.

Methods

A mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician.

Results

A total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders’ gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders’ age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources.

Conclusions

Whereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.

Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites

BACKGROUND

Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed to allow all patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. At the beginning of 2010, a sample of 298 randomly selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia were searched for on 6 German PRWs to examine the frequency of ratings and evaluation tendencies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine (1) the number of identifiable physicians on German PRWs; (2) the number of rated physicians on German PRWs; (3) the average and maximum number of ratings per physician on German PRWs; (4) the average rating on German PRWs; (5) the website visitor ranking positions of German PRWs; and (6) how these data compare with 2010 results.

METHODS

A random stratified sample of 298 selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia was generated. Every selected physician was searched for on the 6 PRWs (Jameda, Imedo, Docinsider, Esando, Topmedic, and Medführer) used in the 2010 study and a PRW, Arztnavigator, launched by Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK).

RESULTS

The results were as follows: (1) Between 65.1% (194/298) on Imedo to 94.6% (282/298) on AOK-Arztnavigator of the physicians were identified on the selected PRWs. (2) Between 16.4% (49/298) on Esando to 83.2% (248/298) on Jameda of the sample had been rated at least once. (3) The average number of ratings per physician ranged from 1.2 (Esando) to 7.5 (AOK-Arztnavigator). The maximum number of ratings per physician ranged from 3 (Esando) to 115 (Docinsider), indicating an increase compared with the ratings of 2 to 27 in the 2010 study sample. (4) The average converted standardized rating (1=positive, 2=neutral, and 3=negative) ranged from 1.0 (Medführer) to 1.2 (Jameda and Topmedic). (5) Only Jameda (position 317) and Medführer (position 9796) were placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Germany.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas there has been an overall increase in the number of ratings when summing up ratings from all 7 analyzed German PRWs, this represents an average addition of only 4 new ratings per physician in a year. The increase has also not been even across the PRWs, and it would be advisable for the users of PRWs to utilize a number of PRWs to ascertain the rating of any given physician. Further research is needed to identify barriers for patients to rate their physicians and to assist efforts to increase the number of ratings on PRWs to consequently improve the fairness and practical importance of PRWs.

Insurees' preferences in hospital choice-A population-based study

In Germany, the patient himself makes the choice for or against a health service provider. Hospital comparison websites offer him possibilities to inform himself before choosing. However, it remains unclear, how health care consumers use those websites, and there is little information about how preferences in hospital choice differ interpersonally. We conducted a Discrete-Choice-Experiment (DCE) on hospital choice with 1500 randomly selected participants (age 40-70) in three different German cities selecting four attributes for hospital vignettes. The analysis of the study draws on multilevel mixed effects logit regression analyses with the dependent variables: "chance to select a hospital" and "choice confidence". Subsequently, we performed a Latent-Class-Analysis to uncover consumer segments with distinct preferences. 590 of the questionnaires were evaluable. All four attributes of the hospital vignettes have a significant impact on hospital choice. The attribute "complication rate" exerts the highest impact on consumers' decisions and reported choice confidence. Latent-Class-Analysis results in one dominant consumer segment that considered the complication rate the most important decision criterion. Using DCE, we were able to show that the complication rate is an important trusted criterion in hospital choice to a large group of consumers. Our study supports current governmental efforts in Germany to concentrate the provision of specialized health care services. We suggest further national and cross-national research on the topic.

Do Physicians Respond to Web-Based Patient Ratings? An Analysis of Physicians' Responses to More Than One Million Web-Based Ratings Over a Six-Year Period

Background

Physician-rating websites (PRWs) may lead to quality improvements in case they enable and establish a peer-to-peer communication between patients and physicians. Yet, we know little about whether and how physicians respond on the Web to patient ratings.

Objective

The objective of this study was to describe trends in physicians’ Web-based responses to patient ratings over time, to identify what physician characteristics influence Web-based responses, and to examine the topics physicians are likely to respond to.

Methods

We analyzed physician responses to more than 1 million patient ratings displayed on the German PRW, jameda, from 2010 to 2015. Quantitative analysis contained chi-square analyses and the Mann-Whitney U test. Quantitative content techniques were applied to determine the topics physicians respond to based on a randomly selected sample of 600 Web-based ratings and corresponding physician responses.

Results

Overall, physicians responded to 1.58% (16,640/1,052,347) of all Web-based ratings, with an increasing trend over time from 0.70% (157/22,355) in 2010 to 1.88% (6377/339,919) in 2015. Web-based ratings that were responded to had significantly worse rating results than ratings that were not responded to (2.15 vs 1.74, P<.001). Physicians who respond on the Web to patient ratings differ significantly from nonresponders regarding several characteristics such as gender and patient recommendation results (P<.001 each). Regarding scaled-survey rating elements, physicians were most likely to respond to the waiting time within the practice (19.4%, 99/509) and the time spent with the patient (18.3%, 110/600). Almost one-third of topics in narrative comments were answered by the physicians (30.66%, 382/1246).

Conclusions

So far, only a minority of physicians have taken the chance to respond on the Web to patient ratings. This is likely because of (1) the low awareness of PRWs among physicians, (2) the fact that only a few PRWs enable physicians to respond on the Web to patient ratings, and (3) the lack of an active moderator to establish peer-to-peer communication. PRW providers should foster more frequent communication between the patient and the physician and encourage physicians to respond on the Web to patient ratings. Further research is needed to learn more about the motivation of physicians to respond or not respond to Web-based patient ratings.

What factors determine the intention to use hospital report cards? The perspectives of users and non-users

OBJECTIVE

Hospitals report cards (HRC) are publicly available Internet websites that provide patients with quality-related information on hospitals and enable hospital comparisons. We aim to identify factors that explain the (intended) use of HRC, including differences between current users and non-users.

METHODS

Drawing on UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology), a cross-sectional study was conducted. Data were derived from an online survey with 1350 respondents and analyzed using structural equation modeling.

RESULTS

42% of the survey participants had already used HRC to search for a hospital. Performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and attitude were found to be significantly related to HRC use intention, with notable differences between users and non-users. Effort expectancy and social influence did not show any significant effects in both subsamples.

CONCLUSION

Patients consider HRC to be a useful instrument and are willing to make the efforts it takes to use HRC. The greater effect of performance expectancy in the non-user sample (compared to the user sample) indicates a certain disillusion among users.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health policy makers should focus on reviewing and restructuring the information content of HRC. In addition, coordinated efforts are still required to facilitate HRC access, especially for the 'less fortunate'.

Do Health Care Providers Use Online Patient Ratings to Improve the Quality of Care? Results From an Online-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care.

Objective

Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care.

Methods

We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers’ demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care.

Results

Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.

Exploring Patients' Views Toward Giving Web-Based Feedback and Ratings to General Practitioners in England: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Background

Patient feedback websites or doctor rating websites are increasingly being used by patients to give feedback about their health care experiences. There is little known about why patients in England may give Web-based feedback and what may motivate or dissuade them from giving Web-based feedback.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore patients’ views toward giving Web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners (GPs), within the context of other feedback methods available in primary care in England, and in particular, paper-based feedback cards.

Methods

A descriptive exploratory qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 18 participants from different age groups in London and Coventry. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using applied thematic analysis.

Results

Half of the participants in this study were not aware of the opportunity to leave feedback for GPs, and there was limited awareness about the methods available to leave feedback for a GP. The majority of participants were not convinced that formal patient feedback was needed by GPs or would be used by GPs for improvement, regardless of whether they gave it via a website or on paper. Some participants said or suggested that they may leave feedback on a website rather than on a paper-based feedback card for several reasons: because of the ability and ease of giving it remotely; because it would be shared with the public; and because it would be taken more seriously by GPs. Others, however, suggested that they would not use a website to leave feedback for the opposite reasons: because of accessibility issues; privacy and security concerns; and because they felt feedback left on a website may be ignored.

Conclusions

Patient feedback and rating websites as they currently are will not replace other mechanisms for patients in England to leave feedback for a GP. Rather, they may motivate a small number of patients who have more altruistic motives or wish to place collective pressure on a GP to give Web-based feedback. If the National Health Service or GP practices want more patients to leave Web-based feedback, we suggest they first make patients aware that they can leave anonymous feedback securely on a website for a GP. They can then convince them that their feedback is needed and wanted by GPs for improvement, and that the reviews they leave on the website will be of benefit to other patients to decide which GP to see or which GP practice to join.

Investigating the Potential Contribution of Patient Rating Sites to Hospital Supervision: Exploratory Results From an Interview Study in the Netherlands

Background

Over the last decades, the patient perspective on health care quality has been unconditionally integrated into quality management. For several years now, patient rating sites have been rapidly gaining attention. These offer a new approach toward hearing the patient’s perspective on the quality of health care.

Objective

The aim of our study was to explore whether and how patient reviews of hospitals, as reported on rating sites, have the potential to contribute to health care inspector’s daily supervision of hospital care.

Methods

Given the unexplored nature of the topic, an interview study among hospital inspectors was designed in the Netherlands. We performed 2 rounds of interviews with 10 senior inspectors, addressing their use and their judgment on the relevance of review data from a rating site.

Results

All 10 Dutch senior hospital inspectors participated in this research. The inspectors initially showed some reluctance to use the major patient rating site in their daily supervision. This was mainly because of objections such as worries about how representative they are, subjectivity, and doubts about the relevance of patient reviews for supervision. However, confrontation with, and assessment of, negative reviews by the inspectors resulted in 23% of the reviews being deemed relevant for risk identification. Most inspectors were cautiously positive about the contribution of the reviews to their risk identification.

Conclusions

Patient rating sites may be of value to the risk-based supervision of hospital care carried out by the Health Care Inspectorate. Health care inspectors do have several objections against the use of patient rating sites for daily supervision. However, when they are presented with texts of negative reviews from a hospital under their supervision, it appears that most inspectors consider it as an additional source of information to detect poor quality of care. Still, it should always be accompanied and verified by other quality and safety indicators. More research on the value and usability of patient rating sites in daily hospital supervision and other health settings is needed.

Consumer Decision-Making Based on Review Websites: Are There Differences Between Choosing a Hotel and Choosing a Physician?

BACKGROUND

Web users are increasingly encouraged to rate and review consumer services (eg, hotels, restaurants) and, more recently, this is also the case for physicians and medical services. The resemblance in the setup and design of commercial rating websites (CRWs) and Web-based physician rating websites (PRWs) raises the question of whether choice-making processes based on the two types of websites could also be similar.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study sought to explore the extent to which consumer decision making based on Web-based reviews is the same for consumer services (ie, choice of a hotel) and health services (ie, choice of a pediatrician), while providing an in-depth understanding of potential differences or similarities.

METHODS

Between June and August 2015, we carried out a total of 22 qualitative interviews with young parents residing in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Participants were invited to complete 2 choice tasks, which involved (1) choosing a hotel based on the commercial Web-based rating website TripAdvisor and (2) selecting a pediatrician based on the PRW Jameda. To better understand consumers' thought processes, we instructed participants to "think aloud", namely to verbalize their thinking while sorting through information and reaching decisions. Using a semistructured interview guide, we subsequently posed open-ended questions to allow them to elaborate more on factors influencing their decision making, level of confidence in their final choice, and perceived differences and similarities in their search for a hotel and a physician. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Participants spent on average 9:57 minutes (standard deviation=9:22, minimum=3:46, maximum=22:25) searching for a hotel and 6:17 minutes (standard deviation=4:47, minimum=00:38, maximum=19:25) searching for a pediatrician. Although the choice of a pediatrician was perceived as more important than the choice of a hotel, participants found choosing a physician much easier than selecting an appropriate accommodation. Four main themes emerged from the analysis of our interview data that can explain the differences in search time and choice confidence: (1) trial and error, (2) trust, (3) competence assessment, and (4) affect and likeability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, despite congruent website designs, individuals only trust review information to choose a hotel, but refuse to fully rely on it for selecting a physician. The design and content of Web-based PRWs need to be adjusted to better address the differing information needs of health consumers.

General Practitioners' Concerns About Online Patient Feedback: Findings From a Descriptive Exploratory Qualitative Study in England

Background

The growth in the volume of online patient feedback, including online patient ratings and comments, suggests that patients are embracing the opportunity to review online their experience of receiving health care. Very little is known about health care professionals’ attitudes toward online patient feedback and whether health care professionals are comfortable with the public nature of the feedback.

Objective

The aim of the overall study was to explore and describe general practitioners’ attitudes toward online patient feedback. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to explore and understand the concerns that general practitioners (GPs) in England have about online patient feedback. This could then be used to improve online patient feedback platforms and help to increase usage of online patient feedback by GPs and, by extension, their patients.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. A topic guide was developed following a literature review and discussions with key stakeholders. GPs (N=20) were recruited from Cambridgeshire, London, and Northwest England through probability and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method, a form of thematic analysis.

Results

Most participants in this study had concerns about online patient feedback. They questioned the validity of online patient feedback because of data and user biases and lack of representativeness, the usability of online patient feedback due to the feedback being anonymous, the transparency of online patient feedback because of the risk of false allegations and breaching confidentiality, and the resulting impact of all those factors on them, their professional practice, and their relationship with their patients.

Conclusions

The majority of GPs interviewed had reservations and concerns about online patient feedback and questioned its validity and usefulness among other things. Based on the findings from the study, recommendations for online patient feedback website providers in England are given. These include suggestions to make some specific changes to the platform and the need to promote online patient feedback more among both GPs and health care users, which may help to reduce some of the concerns raised by GPs about online patient feedback in this study.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites

Background

Even though physician rating websites (PRWs) have been gaining in importance in both practice and research, little evidence is available on the association of patients’ online ratings with the quality of care of physicians. It thus remains unclear whether patients should rely on these ratings when selecting a physician. The objective of this study was to measure the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures for 65 physician practices from the German Integrated Health Care Network “Quality and Efficiency” (QuE).

Methods

Online reviews from two German PRWs were included which covered a three-year period (2011 to 2013) and included 1179 and 991 ratings, respectively. Information for 65 QuE practices was obtained for the year 2012 and included 21 measures related to structural information (N = 6), process quality (N = 10), intermediate outcomes (N = 2), patient satisfaction (N = 1), and costs (N = 2). The Spearman rank coefficient of correlation was applied to measure the association between ratings and practice-related information.

Results

Patient satisfaction results from offline surveys and the patients per doctor ratio in a practice were shown to be significantly associated with online ratings on both PRWs. For one PRW, additional significant associations could be shown between online ratings and cost-related measures for medication, preventative examinations, and one diabetes type 2-related intermediate outcome measure. There again, results from the second PRW showed significant associations with the age of the physicians and the number of patients per practice, four process-related quality measures for diabetes type 2 and asthma, and one cost-related measure for medication.

Conclusions

Several significant associations were found which varied between the PRWs. Patients interested in the satisfaction of other patients with a physician might select a physician on the basis of online ratings. Even though our results indicate associations with some diabetes and asthma measures, but not with coronary heart disease measures, there is still insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions. The limited number of practices in our study may have weakened our findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1051-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The development of online doctor reviews in China: an analysis of the largest online doctor review website in China

BACKGROUND

Since the time of Web 2.0, more and more consumers have used online doctor reviews to rate their doctors or to look for a doctor. This phenomenon has received health care researchers' attention worldwide, and many studies have been conducted on online doctor reviews in the United States and Europe. But no study has yet been done in China. Also, in China, without a mature primary care physician recommendation system, more and more Chinese consumers seek online doctor reviews to look for a good doctor for their health care concerns.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to examine the online doctor review practice in China, including addressing the following questions: (1) How many doctors and specialty areas are available for online review? (2) How many online reviews are there on those doctors? (3) What specialty area doctors are more likely to be reviewed or receive more reviews? (4) Are those reviews positive or negative?

METHODS

This study explores an empirical dataset from Good Doctor website, haodf.com—the earliest and largest online doctor review and online health care community website in China—from 2006 to 2014, to examine the stated research questions by using descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

The dataset from the Good Doctor website contained 314,624 doctors across China and among them, 112,873 doctors received 731,543 quantitative reviews and 772,979 qualitative reviews as of April 11, 2014. On average, 37% of the doctors had been reviewed on the Good Doctor website. Gynecology-obstetrics-pediatrics doctors were most likely to be reviewed, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.497 (95% CI 1.461-1.535), and internal medicine doctors were less likely to be reviewed, with an OR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.921-0.960), relative to the combined small specialty areas. Both traditional Chinese medicine doctors and surgeons were more likely to be reviewed than the combined small specialty areas, with an OR of 1.483 (95% CI 1.442-1.525) and an OR of 1.366 (95% CI 1.337-1.395), respectively. Quantitatively, traditional Chinese medicine doctors (P<.001) and gynecology-obstetrics-pediatrics doctors (P<.001) received more reviews than the combined small specialty areas. But internal medicine doctors received fewer reviews than the combined small specialty areas (P<.001). Also, the majority of quantitative reviews were positive-about 88% were positive for the doctors' treatment effect measure and 91% were positive for the bedside manner measure. This was the case for the four major specialty areas, which had the most number of doctors—internal medicine, gynecology-obstetrics-pediatrics, surgery, and traditional Chinese medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Like consumers in the United States and Europe, Chinese consumers have started to use online doctor reviews. Similar to previous research on other countries' online doctor reviews, the online reviews in China covered almost every medical specialty, and most of the reviews were positive even though all of the reviewing procedures and the final available information were anonymous. The average number of reviews per rated doctor received in this dataset was 6, which was higher than that for doctors in the United States or Germany, probably because this dataset covered a longer time period than did the US or German dataset. But this number is still very small compared to any doctor's real patient population, and it cannot represent the reality of that population. Also, since all the data used for analysis were from one single website, the data might be biased and might not be a representative national sample of China.

Information presentation features and comprehensibility of hospital report cards: design analysis and online survey among users

Background

Improving the transparency of information about the quality of health care providers is one way to improve health care quality. It is assumed that Internet information steers patients toward better-performing health care providers and will motivate providers to improve quality. However, the effect of public reporting on hospital quality is still small. One of the reasons is that users find it difficult to understand the formats in which information is presented.

Objective

We analyzed the presentation of risk-adjusted mortality rate (RAMR) for coronary angiography in the 10 most commonly used German public report cards to analyze the impact of information presentation features on their comprehensibility. We wanted to determine which information presentation features were utilized, were preferred by users, led to better comprehension, and had similar effects to those reported in evidence-based recommendations described in the literature.

Methods

The study consisted of 5 steps: (1) identification of best-practice evidence about the presentation of information on hospital report cards; (2) selection of a single risk-adjusted quality indicator; (3) selection of a sample of designs adopted by German public report cards; (4) identification of the information presentation elements used in public reporting initiatives in Germany; and (5) an online panel completed an online questionnaire that was conducted to determine if respondents were able to identify the hospital with the lowest RAMR and if respondents’ hospital choices were associated with particular information design elements.

Results

Evidence-based recommendations were made relating to the following information presentation features relevant to report cards: evaluative table with symbols, tables without symbols, bar charts, bar charts without symbols, bar charts with symbols, symbols, evaluative word labels, highlighting, order of providers, high values to indicate good performance, explicit statements of whether high or low values indicate good performance, and incomplete data (“N/A” as a value). When investigating the RAMR in a sample of 10 hospitals’ report cards, 7 of these information presentation features were identified. Of these, 5 information presentation features improved comprehensibility in a manner reported previously in literature.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze the most commonly used public reporting card designs used in Germany. Best-practice evidence identified in international literature was in agreement with 5 findings about German report card designs: (1) avoid tables without symbols, (2) include bar charts with symbols, (3) state explicitly whether high or low values indicate good performance or provide a “good quality” range, (4) avoid incomplete data (N/A given as a value), and (5) rank hospitals by performance. However, these findings are preliminary and should be subject of further evaluation. The implementation of 4 of these recommendations should not present insurmountable obstacles. However, ranking hospitals by performance may present substantial difficulties.

Evaluations of dentists on a German physician rating Website: an analysis of the ratings

Background

Physician rating websites have been gaining in importance in both practice and research. However, no evidence is available concerning patients’ ratings of dentists on physician rating websites.

Objective

The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive analysis of the ratings of dentists on a German physician rating website over a 2-year period.

Methods

All dentist ratings on a German physician rating website (Jameda) from 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The available dataset contained 76,456 ratings of 23,902 dentists from 72,758 patients. Additional information included the overall score and subscores for 5 mandatory questions, the medical specialty and gender of the dentists, and the age, gender, and health insurance status of the patients. Statistical analysis was conducted using the median test and the Kendall tau-b test.

Results

During the study period, 44.57% (23,902/53,626) of all dentists in Germany were evaluated on the physician rating website, Jameda. The number of ratings rose from 28,843 in 2012 to 47,613 in 2013, representing an increase of 65.08%. In detail, 45.37% (10,845/23,902) of dentists were rated once, 43.41% (10,376/23,902) between 2 and 5 times, and 11.21% (2681/23,902) more than 6 times (mean 3.16, SD 5.57). Approximately 90% (21,324/23,902, 89.21%) of dentists received a very good or good overall rating, whereas only 3.02% (721/23,902) were rated with the lowest scores. Better ratings were given either by female or older patients, or by those covered by private health insurance. The best-rated specialty was pediatric dentistry; the lowest ratings were given to orthodontists. Finally, dentists were rated slightly lower in 2013 compared to 2012 (P=.01).

Conclusions

The rise in the number of ratings for dentists demonstrates the increasing popularity of physician rating websites and the need for information about health care providers. Future research should assess whether social media, especially Web-based ratings, are suitable in practice for patients and other stakeholders in health care (eg, insurance providers) to reflect the clinical quality of care.

What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire

Background

Consumers are increasingly accessing health-related information via mobile devices. Recently, several apps to rate and locate physicians have been released in the United States and Germany. However, knowledge about what kinds of variables explain usage of mobile physician-rating apps is still lacking.

Objective

This study analyzes factors influencing the adoption of and willingness to pay for mobile physician-rating apps. A structural equation model was developed based on the Technology Acceptance Model and the literature on health-related information searches and usage of mobile apps. Relationships in the model were analyzed for moderating effects of physician-rating website (PRW) usage.

Methods

A total of 1006 randomly selected German patients who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the 3 months before the beginning of the survey were randomly selected and surveyed. A total of 958 usable questionnaires were analyzed by partial least squares path modeling and moderator analyses.

Results

The suggested model yielded a high model fit. We found that perceived ease of use (PEOU) of the Internet to gain health-related information, the sociodemographic variables age and gender, and the psychographic variables digital literacy, feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general, patients’ value of health-related knowledgeability, as well as the information-seeking behavior variables regarding the amount of daily private Internet use for health-related information, frequency of using apps for health-related information in the past, and attitude toward PRWs significantly affected the adoption of mobile physician-rating apps. The sociodemographic variable age, but not gender, and the psychographic variables feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general and patients’ value of health-related knowledgeability, but not digital literacy, were significant predictors of willingness to pay. Frequency of using apps for health-related information in the past and attitude toward PRWs, but not the amount of daily Internet use for health-related information, were significant predictors of willingness to pay. The perceived usefulness of the Internet to gain health-related information and the amount of daily Internet use in general did not have any significant effect on both of the endogenous variables. The moderation analysis with the group comparisons for users and nonusers of PRWs revealed that the attitude toward PRWs had significantly more impact on the adoption and willingness to pay for mobile physician-rating apps in the nonuser group.

Conclusions

Important variables that contribute to the adoption of a mobile physician-rating app and the willingness to pay for it were identified. The results of this study are important for researchers because they can provide important insights about the variables that influence the acceptance of apps that allow for ratings of physicians. They are also useful for creators of mobile physician-rating apps because they can help tailor mobile physician-rating apps to the consumers’ characteristics and needs.

What do patients say about their physicians? an analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website

BACKGROUND

Physician rating websites (PRWs) could be shown to have an impact on physician choice making. However, little research has been carried out to assess the content and nature of narrative comments.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the concerns of patients who commented on physician care and to address and enhance patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Content analysis of 3000 randomly selected narrative comments from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012. We therefore developed a theoretical categorization framework addressing physician, staff, and practice related patient concerns.

FINDINGS

In total, 50 sub-categories addressing the physician (N=20), the office staff (N=13), and the practice (N=17) were derived from the content of all comments. The most frequently mentioned concerns were assessing the professional competence of the physician (63%, N=1874) and friendliness of the physician (38%, N=1148). Thereby, 80% of all comments (mean length 45.3 words ± 42.8) were classified as positive, 4% as neutral and 16% as negative.

CONCLUSION

Users of the German PRW, jameda, are mostly satisfied with their physicians. However, physicians should focus on the time spent with the patients, waiting time, as well as on taking the patients more seriously.

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

Background

The number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs.

Objective

We focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers.

Methods

An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients’ knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions.

Results

A total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t₉₆₇=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ²₁=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ²₄=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ²₁=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t₄₈₉=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t₅₂₀=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t₆₁₂=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t₅₅₉=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t₃₆₇=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t₆₁₉=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs.

Conclusions

Sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.

Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Insight into the quality of health care is important for any stakeholder including patients, professionals, and governments. In light of a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient's perspective, which is commonly done with surveys or focus groups. Unfortunately, these "traditional" methods have significant limitations that include social desirability bias, a time lag between experience and measurement, and difficulty reaching large groups of people. Information on social media could be of value to overcoming these limitations, since these new media are easy to use and are used by the majority of the population. Furthermore, an increasing number of people share health care experiences online or rate the quality of their health care provider on physician rating sites. The question is whether this information is relevant to determining or predicting the quality of health care.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of our research was to systematically analyze the relation between information shared on social media and quality of care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review with the following goals: (1) to map the literature on the association between social media and quality of care, (2) to identify different mechanisms of this relationship, and (3) to determine a more detailed agenda for this relatively new research area. A recognized scoping review methodology was used. We developed a search strategy based on four themes: social media, patient experience, quality, and health care. Four online scientific databases were searched, articles were screened, and data extracted. Results related to the research question were described and categorized according to type of social media. Furthermore, national and international stakeholders were consulted throughout the study, to discuss and interpret results.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 21 were concerned with health care rating sites. Several studies indicate a relationship between information on social media and quality of health care. However, some drawbacks exist, especially regarding the use of rating sites. For example, since rating is anonymous, rating values are not risk adjusted and therefore vulnerable to fraud. Also, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media and particularly rating sites are an interesting new source of information about quality of care from the patient's perspective. This new source should be used to complement traditional methods, since measuring quality of care via social media has other, but not less serious, limitations. Future research should explore whether social media are suitable in practice for patients, health insurers, and governments to help them judge the quality performance of professionals and organizations.

Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study

Background

Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.

Objective

To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.

Methods

This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample.

Results

In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models.

Conclusions

Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.

An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument

BACKGROUND

Physician rating websites (PRW) have been gaining in popularity among patients who are seeking a physician. However, little evidence is available on the number, distribution, or trend of evaluations on PRWs. Furthermore, there is no published evidence available that analyzes the characteristics of the patients who provide ratings on PRWs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to analyze all physician evaluations that were posted on the German PRW, jameda, in 2012.

METHODS

Data from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012 were analyzed and contained 127,192 ratings of 53,585 physicians from 107,148 patients. Information included medical specialty and gender of the physician, age, gender, and health insurance status of the patient, as well as the results of the physician ratings. Statistical analysis was carried out using the median test and Kendall Tau-b test.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven percent of all German physicians were rated on jameda in 2012. Nearly half of those physicians were rated once, and less than 2% were rated more than ten times (mean number of ratings 2.37, SD 3.17). About one third of all rated physicians were female. Rating patients were mostly female (60%), between 30-50 years (51%) and covered by Statutory Health Insurance (83%). A mean of 1.19 evaluations per patient could be calculated (SD 0.778). Most of the rated medical specialties were orthopedists, dermatologists, and gynecologists. Two thirds of all ratings could be assigned to the best category, "very good". Female physicians had significantly better ratings than did their male colleagues (P<.001). Additionally, significant rating differences existed between medical specialties (P<.001). It could further be shown that older patients gave better ratings than did their younger counterparts (P<.001). The same was true for patients covered by private health insurance; they gave more favorable evaluations than did patients covered by statutory health insurance (P<.001). No significant rating differences could be detected between female and male patients (P=.505). The likelihood of a good rating was shown to increase with a rising number of both physician and patient ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are mostly in line with those published for PRWs from the United States. It could be shown that most of the ratings were positive, and differences existed regarding sociodemographic characteristics of both physicians and patients. An increase in the usage of PRWs might contribute to reducing the lack of publicly available information on physician quality. However, it remains unclear whether PRWs have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by individual health care providers. Further research should assess in more detail the motivation of patients who rate their physicians online.

Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Physician-rating websites (PRWs) are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about PRWs.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on PRWs? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with PRWs? 7) What major shortcomings do PRWs have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of PRWs?

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of PRWs is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on PRWs were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on PRWs; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the number of publications is still low, PRWs are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of PRWs is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients' perspective.