Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30045831›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England.

Salma Patel, Rebecca Cain, Kevin Neailey, Lucy Hooberman

Abstract 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Decision-Making Behaviour in Physician-Rating Portals: Results of a Vignette Study in the New Federal States of Germany].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2019
    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.

Salma PatelSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6058-8382
Rebecca CainLoughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9453-0667
Kevin NeaileyWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5720-5005
Lucy HoobermanWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1407-5823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advent and popularity of social media and consumer rating websites, as well as the emergence of the digitally engaged patient, there has been an increased interest in doctor rating websites or online patient feedback websites, both inside and outside academia. However, there is very little known about how the public across England views such rating websites as a mode to give patient experience feedback.

objectiveThe aim of the overall study was to measure and understand public awareness, usage, and attitudes towards doctor rating websites as a mode to give experiential feedback about GPs in general practice in England. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to measure public awareness, current usage and future consideration of usage of online patient feedback websites, within the context of other feedback methods, This could allow the value of online patient feedback websites to be determined from the patients' perspective.

methodsA mixed methods population questionnaire was designed, validated and implemented face-to-face using a cross-sectional design with a representative sample of the public (n=844) in England. The results of the questionnaire were analyzed using chi-square tests, binomial logistic regressions, and content analysis. The qualitative results will be reported elsewhere.

resultsPublic awareness of online patient feedback websites as a channel to leave experiential feedback about GPs was found to be low at 15.2% (128/844). However, usage and future consideration to use online patient feedback websites were found to be extremely low, with current patient usage at just 0.4% (3/844), and patient intention to use online patient feedback in the future at 17.8% (150/844). Furthermore, only 4.0-5.0% of those who would consider leaving feedback about a GP in the future selected doctor rating websites as their most preferred method; more than half of patients said they would consider leaving feedback about GPs using another method, but not using an online patient feedback website.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that online patient feedback websites may not be an effective channel for collecting feedback on patient experience in general practice. Feedback on online patient feedback websites is not likely to be representative of the patient experience in the near future, challenging the use of online patient feedback not just as a mode for collecting patient experience data, but for patient choice and monitoring too. We recommend the National Health Service channels its investment and resources towards providing more direct and private feedback methods in general practice (such as opportunities for face-to-face feedback, email-based feedback, and web-based private feedback forms), as these are currently much more likely to be used by the majority of patients in England.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFeedbackFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultInternetonline reviewsPhysician qualityprimary carepublic reportingquality patient empowermentquality transparency

Identifiers

PMID30045831
PMCPMC6083046

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.