ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017
Do Physicians Respond to Web-Based Patient Ratings? An Analysis of Physicians' Responses to More Than One Million Web-Based Ratings Over a Six-Year Period.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Communicating Commitment to Antibiotic Stewardship: an Effective Strategy for Responding to Online Patient Reviews.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- The Impact of Ambivalent Attitudes on the Helpfulness of Web-Based Reviews: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Large Physician Review Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Digital Footprint of Academic Vascular Surgeons in the Southern United States on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-sectional Evaluation Study.JMIR cardio · 2021Article
- Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- What Patients Value in Physicians: Analyzing Drivers of Patient Satisfaction Using Physician-Rating Website Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- "But His Yelp Reviews Are Awful!": Analysis of General Surgeons' Yelp Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician-rating websites (PRWs) may lead to quality improvements in case they enable and establish a peer-to-peer communication between patients and physicians. Yet, we know little about whether and how physicians respond on the Web to patient ratings.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to describe trends in physicians' Web-based responses to patient ratings over time, to identify what physician characteristics influence Web-based responses, and to examine the topics physicians are likely to respond to.
methodsWe analyzed physician responses to more than 1 million patient ratings displayed on the German PRW, jameda, from 2010 to 2015. Quantitative analysis contained chi-square analyses and the Mann-Whitney U test. Quantitative content techniques were applied to determine the topics physicians respond to based on a randomly selected sample of 600 Web-based ratings and corresponding physician responses.
resultsOverall, physicians responded to 1.58% (16,640/1,052,347) of all Web-based ratings, with an increasing trend over time from 0.70% (157/22,355) in 2010 to 1.88% (6377/339,919) in 2015. Web-based ratings that were responded to had significantly worse rating results than ratings that were not responded to (2.15 vs 1.74, P<.001). Physicians who respond on the Web to patient ratings differ significantly from nonresponders regarding several characteristics such as gender and patient recommendation results (P<.001 each). Regarding scaled-survey rating elements, physicians were most likely to respond to the waiting time within the practice (19.4%, 99/509) and the time spent with the patient (18.3%, 110/600). Almost one-third of topics in narrative comments were answered by the physicians (30.66%, 382/1246).
conclusionsSo far, only a minority of physicians have taken the chance to respond on the Web to patient ratings. This is likely because of (1) the low awareness of PRWs among physicians, (2) the fact that only a few PRWs enable physicians to respond on the Web to patient ratings, and (3) the lack of an active moderator to establish peer-to-peer communication. PRW providers should foster more frequent communication between the patient and the physician and encourage physicians to respond on the Web to patient ratings. Further research is needed to learn more about the motivation of physicians to respond or not respond to Web-based patient ratings.
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.