ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can you know before you go? Information about disability accommodations on US hospital websites.Journal of hospital medicine · 2025Article
- A sentiment analysis driven method based on public and personal preferences with correlated attributes to select online doctors.Applied intelligence (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Experiences and Challenges of Emerging Online Health Services Combating COVID-19 in China: Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Study of Internet Hospitals.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Developing an Educational Website for Women With Endometriosis-Associated Dyspareunia: Usability and Stigma Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Patient Experience in Virtual Visits Hinges on Technology and the Patient-Clinician Relationship: A Large Survey Study With Open-ended Questions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Correlation of Online Physician Rating Subscores and Association With Overall Satisfaction: Observational Study of 212,933 Providers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Observational
- Physician Beliefs About Online Reporting of Quality and Experience Data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSome hospitals' and health systems' websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys.
objectiveThe aim was to examine the prevalence and content of health system websites reporting these data and compare narratives from these sites to narratives from commercial physician-rating sites.
methodsWe identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clinician reviews. For 140 randomly selected clinicians, we extracted the number of star ratings and narrative comments. We conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of these physicians' narrative reviews and compared these to a random sample of reviews from commercial physician-rating websites. We described composite quantitative scores for sampled physicians and compared the frequency of themes between reviews drawn from health systems' and commercial physician-rating websites.
resultsWe identified 42 health systems that published composite star ratings (42/42, 100%) or narratives (33/42, 79%). Most (27/42, 64%) stated that they excluded narratives deemed offensive. Of 140 clinicians, the majority had composite scores listed (star ratings: 122/140, 87.1%; narrative reviews: 114/140, 81.4%), with medians of 110 star ratings (IQR 42-175) and 25.5 (IQR 13-48) narratives. The rating median was 4.8 (IQR 4.7-4.9) out of five stars, and no clinician had a score less than 4.2. Compared to commercial physician-rating websites, we found significantly fewer negative comments on health system websites (35.5%, 76/214 vs 12.8%, 72/561, respectively; P<.001).
conclusionsThe lack of variation in star ratings on health system sites may make it difficult to differentiate between clinicians. Most health systems report that they remove offensive comments, and we notably found fewer negative comments on health system websites compared to commercial physician-rating sites.
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.