ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
How Online Quality Ratings Influence Patients' Choice of Medical Providers: Controlled Experimental Survey Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Sex differences in online ratings of healthcare professionals in Moscow: A cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Inclusion of Veterans Health Administration hospitals in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings.Journal of hospital medicine · 2025Article
- Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Relativity, Rank, and the US News Health's Cardiology, Heart, and Vascular Surgery Best Hospitals.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Differential Effect of Patient- and Provider-Level Factors on Patient Satisfaction Scores in Academic General Internal Medicine Clinics.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Examining the Role of Physician Characteristics in Web-Based Verified Primary Care Physician Reviews: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Alternative cancer clinics' use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients.BJC reports · 2024Article
- QI/PI: POSNA Safe Surgery Program (PSSP)-First-Year Results Implementing Quality Metrics.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2023Article
- How Virtual Triage Can Improve Patient Experience and Satisfaction: A Narrative Review and Look Forward.Telemedicine reports · 2023Review
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on staff turnover at long-term care facilities: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Identifying Influences in Patient Decision-making Processes in Online Health Communities: Data Science Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Psoriasis care in Germany: do patients who receive better care travel longer?Research in health services & regions · 2022Article
- Which surgeon demographic factors influence postoperative complication rates after total knee arthroplasty at U.S. News and World Report top-ranked orthopedic hospitals?Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2022Article
- Questioning the Yelp Effect: Mixed Methods Analysis of Web-Based Reviews of Urgent Cares.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Facebook Reviews as a Supplemental Tool for Hospital Patient Satisfaction and Its Relationship with Hospital Accreditation in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Predicting Hospital Overall Quality Star Ratings in the USA.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, the information environment for patients to learn about physician quality is being rapidly changed by Web-based ratings from both commercial and government efforts. However, little is known about how various types of Web-based ratings affect individuals' choice of physicians.
objectiveThe objective of this research was to measure the relative importance of Web-based quality ratings from governmental and commercial agencies on individuals' choice of primary care physicians.
methodsIn a choice-based conjoint experiment conducted on a sample of 1000 Amazon Mechanical Turk users in October 2016, individuals were asked to choose their preferred primary care physician from pairs of physicians with different ratings in clinical and nonclinical aspects of care provided by governmental and commercial agencies.
resultsThe relative log odds of choosing a physician increases by 1.31 (95% CI 1.26-1.37; P<.001) and 1.32 (95% CI 1.27-1.39; P<.001) units when the government clinical ratings and commercial nonclinical ratings move from 2 to 4 stars, respectively. The relative log odds of choosing a physician increases by 1.12 (95% CI 1.07-1.18; P<.001) units when the commercial clinical ratings move from 2 to 4 stars. The relative log odds of selecting a physician with 4 stars in nonclinical ratings provided by the government is 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P<.001) units higher than a physician with 2 stars in this rating. The log odds of selecting a physician with 4 stars in nonclinical government ratings relative to a physician with 2 stars is 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.33; P<.001) units higher for females compared with males. Similar star increase in nonclinical commercial ratings increases the relative log odds of selecting the physician by female respondents by 0.15 (95% CI 0.04-0.26; P=.006) units.
conclusionsIndividuals perceive nonclinical ratings provided by commercial websites as important as clinical ratings provided by government websites when choosing a primary care physician. There are significant gender differences in how the ratings are used. More research is needed on whether patients are making the best use of different types of ratings, as well as the optimal allocation of resources in improving physician ratings from the government's perspective.
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.