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

Abstract

BackgroundPhysician-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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionsSo 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 Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

“…Physicians can use anonymous PORs for the evaluation of patient satisfaction and assessment of patients’ need. In addition, friendly and personalized responses to PORs may enhance positive patient-provider communication [19].…”

“…The exclusion criteria were (1) studies that did not report empirical outcomes from analyses of PORs and (2) editorials, reviews, or commentaries. Excluded studies were, for example, focused on physicians’ responses to online reviews [19], reported innovative methods for analyzing PORs without reporting the analytical results [20,21], or focused on characteristics of the patients who had used PRWs without reporting POR-related outcomes [2,22].…”

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

“…Together, these physician-rating websites may impact patient health care decision making, as data suggests approximately one-third of users have searched for physicians online and report making decisions regarding physician selection based on these ratings [ 10 ]. Online physician-rating websites may also impact physician behaviors; over the last five years, physicians have been increasingly responding online to their ratings [ 11 ]. Hence, this data source may have significant implications on health care practice and behavior.…”

“…Most previous work on online physician ratings has focused on reviewing the frequency and usage among different physician specialties in the United States, China, and Germany [ 6 , 12 - 26 ], as well as exploring awareness and perceptions among physicians and consumers [ 10 , 11 , 27 - 29 ]. More recently, the focus has been to correlate online ratings with quality outcomes or surrogates such as postoperative mortality and surgical volumes with variable findings, depending on the quality outcome in question [ 6 , 30 - 38 ].…”

To be continued ………Supporting physicians' lifelong learning

“…Online physician rating platforms have received increased media publicity and continue to gain scientific interest based on their potential relevance for physicians' lifelong learning. [68][69][70][71][72][73] Online ratings may generate insight into patients' perspective on how physicians perform which physicians could use as informal feedback to, for instance, reflect on their communication or workflow and ultimately to improve their performance and patient care. [74][75][76] In an era of patient empowerment and social networks, patients are increasingly seeking information online before deciding on healthcare services.…”