ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016
Exploring Patients' Views Toward Giving Web-Based Feedback and Ratings to General Practitioners in England: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- "They Gave Me One Star?" An Analysis of Online Reviews of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Web-Based Public Ratings of General Practitioners in Norway: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Turning the gaze: Digital patient feedback and the silent pathology of the NHS.Sociology of health & illness · 2022Article
- The Impact of Teammates' Online Reputations on Physicians' Online Appointment Numbers: A Social Interdependency Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Online patient feedback as a measure of quality in primary care: a multimethod study using correlation and qualitative analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- What Patients Value in Physicians: Analyzing Drivers of Patient Satisfaction Using Physician-Rating Website Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Unhappy Patients Are Not Alike: Content Analysis of the Negative Comments from China's Good Doctor Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Implementing online patient feedback in a 'special measures' acute hospital: A case study using Normalisation Process Theory.Digital healthArticle
- Exploring sources of patient dissatisfaction in mobile health communication: A text analysis based on structural topic model.Digital healthArticle
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
backgroundPatient feedback websites or doctor rating websites are increasingly being used by patients to give feedback about their health care experiences. There is little known about why patients in England may give Web-based feedback and what may motivate or dissuade them from giving Web-based feedback.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore patients' views toward giving Web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners (GPs), within the context of other feedback methods available in primary care in England, and in particular, paper-based feedback cards.
methodsA descriptive exploratory qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 18 participants from different age groups in London and Coventry. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using applied thematic analysis.
resultsHalf of the participants in this study were not aware of the opportunity to leave feedback for GPs, and there was limited awareness about the methods available to leave feedback for a GP. The majority of participants were not convinced that formal patient feedback was needed by GPs or would be used by GPs for improvement, regardless of whether they gave it via a website or on paper. Some participants said or suggested that they may leave feedback on a website rather than on a paper-based feedback card for several reasons: because of the ability and ease of giving it remotely; because it would be shared with the public; and because it would be taken more seriously by GPs. Others, however, suggested that they would not use a website to leave feedback for the opposite reasons: because of accessibility issues; privacy and security concerns; and because they felt feedback left on a website may be ignored.
conclusionsPatient feedback and rating websites as they currently are will not replace other mechanisms for patients in England to leave feedback for a GP. Rather, they may motivate a small number of patients who have more altruistic motives or wish to place collective pressure on a GP to give Web-based feedback. If the National Health Service or GP practices want more patients to leave Web-based feedback, we suggest they first make patients aware that they can leave anonymous feedback securely on a website for a GP. They can then convince them that their feedback is needed and wanted by GPs for improvement, and that the reviews they leave on the website will be of benefit to other patients to decide which GP to see or which GP practice to join.
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.