Online Physician Scorecards Measure Patient Satisfaction and Perception of Experience Rather Than Quality of Care

Chen, Jennwood; Presson, Angela P.; Zhang, Chong; Ray, David M.; Finlayson, Samuel R.G.; Glasgow, Robert E.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.06.234

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings sustain physician worries that even one negative PRW review can be highly damaging to their reputation [71]. Furthermore, these results put forward that internet users select health care providers based on patient-written reviews that contain information only weakly, selectively, or not at all related to objective measures of care quality according to various studies [24,78]. Hopes that health literacy might raise awareness of the insufficient basis of the rating of physicians' medical performance by patients have mostly not been sustained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…On a more general level, patient satisfaction is not necessarily related to objective outcome-of-care assessments [17][18][19][20]. PRW reviews or ratings were found to be only selectively [21,22], weakly [23], or not at all associated to objective measures of quality such as mortality rates [24,25] or surgeon volume. Furthermore, patient judgment of health care quality may be clouded by circumstantial factors.…”

Section: Physician Rating Websitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors

Schulz¹,

Rothenfluh²

2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a device people use actively and passively, although their objective capabilities are insufficient when it comes to judging the medical performance and qualification of physicians. PRWs are an innovation born of the potential of the Internet and boosted very much by the longstanding policy of improving and encouraging patient participation in medical decision-making. A mismatch is feared between patient motivations to participate and their capabilities of doing so well. Awareness of such a mismatch might contribute to some skepticism of patient-written physician reviews on PRWs. Objective We intend to test whether health literacy is able to dampen the effects that a patient-written review of a physician’s performance might have on physician choice. Methods An experiment was conducted within a survey interview. Participants were put into a fictitious decision situation in which they had to choose between two physicians on the basis of their profiles on a PRW. One of the physician profiles contained the experimental stimulus in the form of a friendly and a critical written review. The dependent variable was physician choice. An attitude differential, trust differential, and two measures of health literacy, the newest vital sign as an example of a performance-based measure and eHealth Literacy Scale as an example of a perception-based measure, were tested for roles as intermediary variables. Analysis traced the influence of the review tendency on the dependent variables and a possible moderating effect of health literacy on these influences. Results Reviews of a physician’s competence and medical skill affected participant choice of a physician. High health literacy dampened these effects only in the case of the perception-based measure and only for the negative review. Correspondingly, the effect of the review tendency appeared to be stronger for the positive review. Attitudes and trust only affected physician choice when included as covariants, considerably increasing the variance explained by regression models. Conclusions Findings sustain physician worries that even one negative PRW review can affect patient choice and damage doctors’ reputations. Hopes that health literacy might raise awareness of the poor basis of physician reviews and ratings given by patients have some foundation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%