ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013
Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
81 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Examining Different Factors in Web-Based Patients' Decision-Making Process: Systematic Review on Digital Platforms for Clinical Decision Support System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Insights into the impact of online physician reviews on patients' decision making: randomized experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Trial
- The Readability of Patient-Facing Information in Public Reporting System: Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the City of Helsinki Website.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
- Characterizing Negative Online Reviews in Hand Surgery.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Ophthalmologists' Evaluation by Physician Review Websites-Do Only Soft Skills Matter? A Cross-National Analysis of over 70,000 Patient Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "They Gave Me One Star?" An Analysis of Online Reviews of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Considering the potential unintended consequences of RateMDs: an exploratory study in one specialty.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Review
- Using Sentiment Analysis to Understand What Patients Are Saying About Hand Surgeons Online.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- The Influence of Paid Memberships on Physician Rating Websites With the Example of the German Portal Jameda: Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Physician Review Websites: Understanding Patient Satisfaction with Ophthalmologists Using Natural Language Processing.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Building better pediatric surgeons: A sentiment analysis of online physician review websites.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2022Article
- The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Analysis of Patients' Online Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with the Patient/Client Use of Report Cards, Physician Rating Websites, Social Media, and Google for Hospital and Physician Selection: A Nationwide Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Psoriasis care in Germany: do patients who receive better care travel longer?Research in health services & regions · 2022Article
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.
objectiveTo estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.
methodsThis study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample.
resultsIn total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models.
conclusionsNeither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.