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

Patel, Salma; Cain, Rebecca; Neailey, Kevin; Hooberman, Lucy

doi:10.2196/jmir.5865

Cited by 25 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, there is currently limited research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians on PRWs, and more research is needed regarding this issue to identify barriers that may be addressed. A recently published study by Patel et al explored patients’ views regarding rating general practitioners on PRWs, within the context of other feedback methods available in England [ 34 ]. Participants reported that they would not leave feedback on PRWs because of accessibility issues, privacy and security concerns, and because they felt feedback left on a website may be ignored [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recently published study by Patel et al explored patients’ views regarding rating general practitioners on PRWs, within the context of other feedback methods available in England [ 34 ]. Participants reported that they would not leave feedback on PRWs because of accessibility issues, privacy and security concerns, and because they felt feedback left on a website may be ignored [ 34 ]. Hanauer et al also asked participants in their 2012 US study to consider the implications of leaving negative comments about a physician [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

McLennan¹,

Strech²,

Meyer³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsWhereas 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

McLennan¹,

Strech²,

Meyer³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Equally, patients in general have mixed views about the appropriateness of posting reviews online. A qualitative interview study showed that it can be a convenient way of publicly sharing feedback, but that patients are concerned about accessibility, privacy and security, and about how seriously doctors would take it 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online patient feedback as a measure of quality in primary care: a multimethod study using correlation and qualitative analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo ascertain the relationship between online patient feedback and the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and the Friends and Family Test (FFT). To consider the potential benefit it may add by describing the content of public reviews found on NHS Choices for all general practices in one Clinical Commissioning Group in England.DesignMultimethod study using correlation and thematic analysis.Setting1396 public online reviews and ratings on NHS Choices for all General Practices (n=70) in Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group in England.ResultsSignificant moderate correlations were found between the online patient feedback and the GPPS and the FFT. Three themes were developed through the qualitative analysis: (1) online feedback largely provides positive reinforcement for practice staff; (2) online feedback is used as a platform for suggesting service organisation and delivery improvements; (3) online feedback can be a source of insight into patients’ expectations of care. These themes illustrate the wide range of topics commented on by patients, including their medical care, relationships with various members of staff, practice facilities, amenities and services in primary care settings.ConclusionsThis multimethod study demonstrates that online feedback found on NHS Choices is significantly correlated with established measures of quality in primary care. This suggests it has a potential use in understanding patient experience and satisfaction, and a potential use in quality improvement and patient safety. The qualitative analysis shows that this form of feedback contains helpful information about patients’ experiences of general practice that provide insight into issues of quality and patient safety relevant to primary care. Health providers should offer patients multiple ways of offering feedback, including online, and should have systems in place to respond to and act on this feedback.

show abstract

“…Compared with on-site complaints, patients benefit from increased time and description allowance when complaining online. Salma et al [ 8 ] conducted a qualitative study into patients’ attitudes toward submitting Web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners (GPs) in England; they suggested that patients leave comments online mainly for one of the following three reasons: (1) the ability and ease of giving it remotely, (2) availability to the public, and (3) the perceived serious attitude of the GPs toward the Web-based comments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zhang¹,

Deng²,

Hong³

et al. 2018

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAnalysis, 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.ConclusionsAnalysis 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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 25 publications

References 59 publications

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

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

Online patient feedback as a measure of quality in primary care: a multimethod study using correlation and qualitative analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About