Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29581091›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

How Online Quality Ratings Influence Patients' Choice of Medical Providers: Controlled Experimental Survey Study.

Niam Yaraghi, Weiguang Wang, Guodong Gordon Gao, Ritu Agarwal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. QI/PI: POSNA Safe Surgery Program (PSSP)-First-Year Results Implementing Quality Metrics.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Niam YaraghiDepartment of Operations and Information Management, University of Connecticut, Stamford, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-0251
Weiguang WangDepartment of Decision, Operations and Information Technologies, Robert H Smith School of Business, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2866-0994
Guodong Gordon GaoDepartment of Decision, Operations and Information Technologies, Robert H Smith School of Business, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2336-9682
Ritu AgarwalDepartment of Decision, Operations and Information Technologies, Robert H Smith School of Business, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8907-5652
University of Maryland, College Park · USBrookings Institution · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FemaleHumansInternetMalePhysicians, Primary CareQuality of Health CareResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaireshealth care evaluation mechanismsquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID29581091
PMCPMC5891665
OpenAlexW2793798943

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.