Patients’ Online Perception and Ratings of Neurotologists

Goshtasbi, Khodayar; Lehrich, Brandon M.; Moshtaghi, Omid; Abouzari, Mehdi; Sahyouni, Ronald; Bagheri, Kian; Moshtaghi, Afsheen; Tajran, Sarah D; Lee, Lauren; Lin, Harrison W.; Djalilian, Hamid R.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000002075

Cited by 12 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies that analyzed the patients’ narrative comments found that these comments covered the entire health care encounter of the facility and staff [54,55], including physicians’ demeanor, staff friendliness, empathy, and cost [60,61]; patients also cared about the ease of scheduling, time spent with patients, and wait time [62].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

Hong¹,

Liang²,

Radcliff³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients’ choice of health care providers. Objective The objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research. Methods A major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables. Results A total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients’ comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation. Conclusions PORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C)

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

Hong¹,

Liang²,

Radcliff³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of note, our calculated RS of rhinologists was in-line with those previously reported for neurosurgeons 22 and neurotologists. 14 Naturally, patients developed good rapport with both male and female clinicians, and RS was not associated with medical school or residency rankings. In a study by Tsugawa et al., medical school or residency ranking was also shown to not associate with patient outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…10–12 Other factors outside of the physicians’ immediate control, such as gender, age, subspecialty, or region of practice may also play important roles in the received online ratings and comments. 13–15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10][11][12] Other factors outside of the physicians' immediate control, such as gender, age, subspecialty, or region of practice may also play important roles in the received online ratings and comments. [13][14][15] The emerging popularity of various online platforms has also allowed open and convenient access to physicians' scholarly outputs and industry payments. With both possibly increasing over the years among academic surgeons, 16,17 industry funding can be associated with greater scholarly impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Goshtasbi

Lehrich

Abouzari

et al. 2020

Am J Rhinol�Allergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The emergence of popular online rating websites, social media platforms, and public databases for industry payments and scholarly outputs provide a complete physician online presence which may guide choice and satisfaction. Methods Websites of all U.S. otolaryngology academic institutions were queried for fellowship-trained rhinologists. Additional well-known and academically active rhinologists were identified by the senior author. Online ratings and comments were collected from Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, and RateMD websites, and weighted rating scores (RS) were calculated on a 1–5 scale. Results A total of 210 rhinologists with 16 ± 9 years of practice were included, where 6901 online ratings (33 ± 47 per rhinologist) provided an average RS of 4.3 ± 0.6. RS was not different according to gender ( p = 0.58), geographic quartile ( p = 0.48), social media presence ( p = 0.41), or attending top-ranked medical school ( p = 0.86) or residency programs ( p = 0.89). Years of practice negatively correlated with RS (R = –0.22, p<0.01), and academic ranking significantly influenced RS, with professors, associate professors, and assistant professors scoring 4.1 ± 0.6, 4.3 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.6, respectively ( p = 0.03). Of the 3,304 narrative comments analyzed (3.1 ± 11.6 per rhinologist), 76% (positive) and 7% (negative) had elements of clinical knowledge/outcomes, 56% (positive) and 7% (negative) of communication/bedside manner, and 9% (positive) and 7% (negative) of office staff, cost, and wait-time. All negative comment categories had moderate negative correlation with RS, while positive comment categories regarding knowledge/competence and bedside manner weakly correlated with higher RS. Number of publications (48 ± 54) positively correlated with 2018 industry payments ($11,384 ± $19,025) among those receiving industry compensation >$300 (n = 113). Attending a top-ranked medical school was associated with higher industry payments ( p<0.01) and H-index ( p = 0.02). Conclusion Academic rhinologists’ online RS was not associated with gender, geographic location, or attending a top-ranked training program, and their scholarly productivity was significantly correlated with total industry payments.

show abstract

“…One conclusion from Goshtasbi's study is that patients highly value "patient experience" over more objective outcomes measures. 16 In contrast to Press Ganey surveys, which are validated, the validity of PGOR sources remains in question. 17 Practicing physicians may be aware of HGOR results visible on institutions' websites; however, patients have alternate online opportunities to obtain and provide subjective physician information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Reputations: Comparing Hospital- and Patient-Generated Ratings in Academic Otolaryngology

Basa

Jabbour

Rohlfing

et al. 2021

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study compares hospital-generated online ratings to patient-generated online ratings in academic otolaryngology and evaluates physician factors influencing these results. Methods: Websites of academic otolaryngologists were assessed for inclusion of hospital-generated Press Ganey surveys. Corresponding scores on Healthgrades and Vitals.com were identified via internet search. Hospital ratings were compared with patient-generated ratings, including score, demographics, and number of ratings. All data was collected between July 15th 2019 and August 22nd 2019. Results: 742 academic otolaryngologists with hospital-generated ratings were identified. Mean hospital-generated rating was significantly higher ((4.70, 95% CI 4.69-4.72) than patient-generated rating (Vitals:4.26, 95% CI 4.18-4.34, and Healthgrades:4.02, 95% CI 3.87-4.18; P < .001). In patient-generated rating, an increased number of rating scores (>20) was associated with male gender, professor ranking, and >30 years in practice ( P < .005). Physician demographics did not impact number of ratings in hospital-generated setting. With patient-generated, lower aggregate score was associated with professor ranking ( P = .001). In hospital-generated, lower score was associated with >30+ years in practice ( P = .023). Across all platforms, comprehensive otolaryngologists and neurotologists/otologists were rated lower in comparison to other specialties (PGS: P < .001,Vitals: P = .027,Healthgrades: P = .016). Conclusion: Hospital-generated ratings yield higher mean scores than patient-generated platforms. Between sources, Healthgrades.com scores were lower than those of Vitals.com . Professors with >30 years of practice generated more reviews in patient-generated ratings, and these physicians were generally rated lower. Access to patient-generated ratings is universal and physicians should be aware of variability between online rating platforms as scores may affect referrals and practice patterns.

show abstract

Patients’ Online Perception and Ratings of Neurotologists

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews

Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

Online Reputations: Comparing Hospital- and Patient-Generated Ratings in Academic Otolaryngology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About