Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28747292›Full record

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.

Martin Emmert, Lisa Sauter, Lisa Jablonski, Uwe Sander, Fatemeh Taheri-Zadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Martin EmmertInstitute of Management, School of Business and Economics, Health Services Management, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0154-6641
Lisa SauterInstitute of Management, School of Business and Economics, Health Services Management, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-1505
Lisa JablonskiInstitute of Management, School of Business and Economics, Health Services Management, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4252-3817
Uwe SanderMedia, Information and Design, Department of Information and Communication, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9521-5423
Fatemeh Taheri-ZadehMedia, Information and Design, Department of Information and Communication, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8486-5762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesTime Factorsdoctor-patient communicationInternetonline ratingspublic reportingtransparency

Identifiers

PMID28747292
PMCPMC5550732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.