Online Physician Reviews in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery: What Do Patients Really Want?

Asanad, Kian; Parameshwar, Pooja S.; Houman, Justin; Spiegel, Brennan; Daskivich, Timothy J.; Anger, Jennifer T.

doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000503

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, more than 80% of urologists had at least one rating, demonstrating the use of PRWs by patients. These data are consistent with a prior study evaluating urologist ratings, which highlighted only that a small percentage of physicians do not have ratings associated with their profiles [10,11]. Interestingly, other investigations demonstrated that a large percentage of physicians overall have no ratings, but that specialists are twice as likely to have online ratings when compared with generalists [6,12].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

Cw¹,

Zillioux²,

Rapp³

2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Within the urology literature, we could identify only two studies focused on the assessment of online ratings [10,11]. Thus, we sought to comprehensively assess online ratings in a large cohort of urologists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

Cw¹,

Zillioux²,

Rapp³

2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Online reviews can be an important source for patient feedback for physicians individually and for the healthcare system to improve quality and increase value . In a study of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery specialists, physicians perceived as empathetic were more likely to receive a positive review regardless of wait times . Bedside manner was found to be multidimensional and included physician competence and understanding patients’ concerns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 In a study of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery specialists, physicians perceived as empathetic were more likely to receive a positive review regardless of wait times. 9 Bedside manner was found to be multidimensional and included physician competence and understanding patients' concerns. In a study of online reviews of facial plastic surgeons, in both 1-star and 5-star reviews, bedside manner is the most important factor and satisfactory results are the third most important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative Online Patient Reviews in Headache Medicine

Evans

2018

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients commonly use online reviews in selecting a new physician. There have been no studies of online reviews of headache medicine physicians. To better understand headache medicine physicians’ attitudes and opinions about negative reviews, 2 negative patient reviews were posted to the Southern Headache Society online discussion group and comments were requested. Twenty‐two anonymous comments are provided. The strengths and inadequacies of online physician reviews in other specialties and the possible actions headache medicine physicians should take for negative reviews are discussed. A nationwide survey of online reviews of headache medicine specialists would be of interest.

show abstract

“…Each commenter’s username, date of review, and star rating was noted. Free-form reviews were manually tabulated, categorized, and resolved by 2 independent reviewers and were empirically divided into 5 categories modified from previously defined categories [15]: Scheduling (doctor availability and punctuality), billing, office and staff (staff friendliness or professionalism, staff presence, and office décor or location), clinical outcome (correct diagnosis or treatment, technical skill, treatment of unforeseen complications, if additional treatment was needed, and follow-up care), and physician demeanor (education, empathy, bedside manner, professionalism, preparedness or organization, time with doctor, communication skills, shared decision making, and general impression). Remarks within negative reviews were noted to be negative, neutral, or positive.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“But His Yelp Reviews Are Awful!”: Analysis of General Surgeons’ Yelp Reviews

Liu¹,

Uffenheimer²,

Nasseri³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients use Web-based platforms to review general surgeons. However, little is known about the free-form text and structured content of the reviews or how they relate to the physicians’ characteristics or their practices. Objective This observational study aimed to analyze the Web-based reviews of general surgeons on the west side of Los Angeles. Methods Demographics, practice characteristics, and Web-based presence were recorded. We evaluated frequency and types of Yelp reviews and assigned negative remarks to 5 categories. Tabulated results were evaluated using independent t test, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson correlation analysis to determine associations between the number of total and negative reviews with respect to practice structure and physician characteristics. Results Of the 146 general surgeons, 51 (35%) had at least 1 review and 29 (20%) had at least 1 negative review. There were 806 total reviews, 679 (84.2%) positive reviews and 127 (15.8%) negative reviews. The negative reviews contained a total of 376 negative remarks, categorized into physician demeanor (124/376, 32.9%), clinical outcomes (81/376, 22%), office or staff (83/376, 22%), scheduling (44/376, 12%), and billing (44/376, 12%). Surgeons with a professional website had significantly more reviews than those without ( P =.003). Surgeons in private practice had significantly more reviews ( P =.002) and more negative reviews ( P =.03) than surgeons who were institution employed. A strong and direct correlation was found between a surgeon’s number of reviews and number of negative reviews ( P <.001). Conclusions As the most common category of complaints was about physician demeanor, surgeons may optimize their Web-based reputation by improving their bedside manner. A surgeon’s Web presence, private practice, and the total number of reviews are significantly associated with both positive and negative reviews.

show abstract

Online Physician Reviews in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery: What Do Patients Really Want?

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

Negative Online Patient Reviews in Headache Medicine

“But His Yelp Reviews Are Awful!”: Analysis of General Surgeons’ Yelp Reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About