Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study

Liu, Jessica J.; Matelski, John; Bell, Chaim M.

doi:10.2196/jmir.7475

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are in general agreement with other studies that show that physicians are, overall, rated positively [ 13 , 20 , 21 , 29 ]. Our findings are also consistent with data showing lower online ratings for physicians on probation for many types of misconduct, but not sexual offenses [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Since its launch in Canada (2005), it is the country’s leading physician rating website and one of the most popular physician rating websites in North America [ 41 , 43 ]. As of 2013, RateMDs.com included more than 640,000 ratings of over 57,000 unique physicians in Canada [ 29 ]. No registration or subscription is required to view or submit a rating, and there are no monetary reimbursement or other incentives to rate a physician.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have focused on the awareness of and frequency of ratings for specific medical specialties on rating websites in Canada, the United States, China, and Germany [ 11 - 29 ]. The recent focus has been to correlate web-based ratings with quality outcomes or surrogates such as postoperative mortality—with variable findings [ 13 , 30 - 35 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study

Liu¹,

Goldberg²,

Lentz³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Physician rating websites are commonly used by the public, yet the relationship between web-based physician ratings and health care quality is not well understood. Objective The objective of our study was to use physician disciplinary convictions as an extreme marker for poor physician quality and to investigate whether disciplined physicians have lower ratings than nondisciplined matched controls. Methods This was a retrospective national observational study of all disciplined physicians in Canada (751 physicians, 2000 to 2013). We searched ratings (2005-2015) from the country’s leading online physician rating website for this group, and for 751 matched controls according to gender, specialty, practice years, and location. We compared overall ratings (out of a score of 5) as well as mean ratings by the type of misconduct. We also compared ratings for each type of misconduct and punishment. Results There were 62.7% (471/751) of convicted and disciplined physicians (cases) with web-based ratings and 64.6% (485/751) of nondisciplined physicians (controls) with ratings. Of 312 matched case-control pairs, disciplined physicians were rated lower than controls overall (3.62 vs 4.00; P<.001). Disciplined physicians had lower ratings for all types of misconduct and punishment—except for physicians disciplined for sexual offenses (n=90 pairs; 3.83 vs 3.86; P=.81). Sexual misconduct was the only category in which mean ratings for physicians were higher than those for other disciplined physicians (3.63 vs 3.35; P=.003) Conclusions Physicians convicted for disciplinary misconduct generally had lower web-based ratings. Physicians convicted of sexual misconduct did not have lower ratings and were rated higher than other disciplined physicians. These findings may have future implications for the identification of physicians providing poor-quality care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study

Liu¹,

Goldberg²,

Lentz³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the number of ratings and reviews that physicians received depended on their specialty. One study noted that physicians in specialties that warranted high interaction with patients, such as obstetrics and gynecology, were more likely to be rated, while other specialties, such as pathology, were less likely to be rated [ 54 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review

Mulgund¹,

Sharman²,

Anand³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, online physician-rating websites have become prominent and exert considerable influence on patients’ decisions. However, the quality of these decisions depends on the quality of data that these systems collect. Thus, there is a need to examine the various data quality issues with physician-rating websites. Objective This study’s objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literature on online patient-reported physician ratings and reviews. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2020. Results A total of 423 articles were screened. From these, 49 papers describing 18 unique data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites were included. Using a data quality framework, we classified these issues into the following four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessible. Among the papers, 53% (26/49) reported intrinsic data quality errors, 61% (30/49) highlighted contextual data quality issues, 8% (4/49) discussed representational data quality issues, and 27% (13/49) emphasized accessibility data quality. More than half the papers discussed multiple categories of data quality issues. Conclusions The results from this review demonstrate the presence of a range of data quality issues. While intrinsic and contextual factors have been well-researched, accessibility and representational issues warrant more attention from researchers, as well as practitioners. In particular, representational factors, such as the impact of inline advertisements and the positioning of positive reviews on the first few pages, are usually deliberate and result from the business model of physician-rating websites. The impact of these factors on data quality has not been addressed adequately and requires further investigation.

show abstract

“…For instance, McGrath and colleagues recently reported that patients tend to give more favorable reviews to doctors listed on Castle Connolly Medical's "America's Top Doctors, " a peer-reviewed title that carries a sense of prestige or, at the very least, esteem (20). Moreover, surgical subspecialties often associated with higher incomes tend to receive higher ratings than their generalist counterparts (21,22). In our cohort we did not replicate these findings, as there was a small negative correlation between income and ratings in the surgical cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicians' Earnings Do Not Affect Their Online Ratings

Haffey

Hopman

Leveridge

2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physician-rating websites have exploded in popularity in recent years. Consequently, these sites have garnered attention from researchers interested in factors influencing patient satisfaction. A doctor's earnings might reflect practice patterns that could influence their patients' perceptions. We sought to explore any association between physicians' earnings and their online ratings. Methods: The names and billings of 500 physicians from British Columbia, Canada were randomly extracted from the 2016-17 BC Blue Book and matched to their profiles on RateMDs.com. Physicians' earnings were compared to their global ratings and to their Staff, Punctuality, Helpfulness, and Knowledge scores. Earnings and ratings were also compared between men and women, as well as between family medicine, surgical, and internal medicine and subspecialties cohorts. Results: We found no significant correlation between physicians' earnings and their global online ratings (p = 0.304). Weak negative correlations existed between earnings and Staff and Helpfulness ratings (Spearman's rho = −0.055, p < 0.001; rho = −0.033, p < 0.028). Online ratings were largely favorable (mean MD rating of 3.85/5. Male physicians earned significantly more than their female colleagues ($371,734.85 and $261,590.82, respectively; p < 0.001), but no significant difference existed between men and women with regards to online ratings (mean 3.87 and 3.81, respectively, p = 0.191). Surgical and Family Medicine specialties showed a negative correlation between income and ratings; no relationship was seen in the internal medicine and subspecialties cohort. Conclusions: No meaningful association was found between physicians' earnings and their online ratings, although there is an impact of specialty grouping. Patients tend to review doctors favorably online; these data add to the discussion of whether male and female doctors are differentially rated. Trends toward increased transparency in health care systems may help to elucidate how doctors' earnings influence patients' perception of and satisfaction with the care they receive.

show abstract

Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study

Cited by 35 publications

References 40 publications

Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study

Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study

Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review

Physicians' Earnings Do Not Affect Their Online Ratings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About