ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014
Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- The Impact of Web-Based Ratings on Patient Choice of a Primary Care Physician Versus a Specialist: Randomized Controlled Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Insights into the impact of online physician reviews on patients' decision making: randomized experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Trial
- Digital engagement and online health information seeking behaviour among older adults: findings from Türkiye.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Characterizing Negative Online Reviews in Hand Surgery.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
- 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
- A Large Number of Reviews on Physician Rating Websites May Reflect Reputation Management.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2022Article
- Physician Gender, Patient Risk, and Web-Based Reviews: Longitudinal Study of the Relationship Between Physicians' Gender and Their Web-Based Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Social Media in Hip Arthroscopy Is an Underused Resource That Enhances Physician Online Reputation.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- What Affects an Orthopaedic Surgeon's Online Rating? A Large-Scale, Retrospective Analysis.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022Article
- Choosing a Provider: What Factors Matter Most to Consumers and Patients?Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the Arab world: a cross-sectional study.Global health research and policy · 2021Article
- Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs.
objectiveWe focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers.
methodsAn online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients' knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions.
resultsA total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t967=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ(2) 1=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ(2) 4=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ(2) 1=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t489=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t520=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t612=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t559=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t367=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t619=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs.
conclusionsSociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.
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.