Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundPhysician-rating websites 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.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites.MethodsPeer-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 physician-rating websites? 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 physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites?ResultsTwenty-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 physician-rating websites 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 physician-rating websites 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 physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented.ConclusionsAlthough the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites 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.

Physician Rating Websites: Do Radiologists Have an Online Presence?

“…These online rating sites are gaining popularity among patients seeking information about their physicians and other health care providers; but, to date, they have received relatively little attention in the peerreviewed literature [1].…”

Understanding a Nonlinear Causal Relationship Between Rewards and Physicians� Contributions in Online Health Care Communities: Longitudinal Study (Preprint)

“…Comparing these two types of rewards, Table 2 showed the standardized regression coefficients of ∆ MR t and ∆ PR t were 0.359 and 0.192, respectively, meaning that the material reward had a larger effect than psychological reward. Moreover, we examined the multiple quadratic regression model as model (2).…”

“…All of the estimates are statistically significantly at a 0.1% level. Table 3 reports the regression analysis results for model (2), including the standardized regression coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and p-values for all variables. In comparison with model (1), the R-Squared value is raised from 53.4% to 57.0%, which means that the addition of two quadratic variables could improve the original model.…”

“…This phenomenon has received the attention of many researchers, and several studies of the OHC have been conducted focusing on various issues, such as how online physician reviews have been used in different countries [2][3][4][5][6][7]; what are the differences between the traditional and online physician reviews [8]; and whether differences in medical specialty areas affect these reviews [5,9]. Nevertheless, in China, even though the OHC might help consumers look for a good physician, the queues at Chinese hospitals are legendary [10], which means that it is not easy to make an appointment with a physician.…”

Patient Rating Sites for Daily Supervision by Healthcare Inspectorates: Implementation into Practice

“…Before using ratings to determine the quality of care, it should be taken into consideration that ratingsare mostly sharedanonymously, and that rating values are not always risk adjusted and may therefore be vulnerable to multiple reviews by one individual or fraud. Moreover, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive [5][6][7]. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population.…”