ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining Different Factors in Web-Based Patients' Decision-Making Process: Systematic Review on Digital Platforms for Clinical Decision Support System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effect of Negative Online Reviews and Physician Responses on Health Consumers' Choice: Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Using Sentiment Analysis to Understand What Patients Are Saying About Hand Surgeons Online.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Physician Review Websites: Understanding Patient Satisfaction with Ophthalmologists Using Natural Language Processing.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- A sentiment analysis on online psychiatrist reviews to identify clinical attributes of psychiatrists that shape the therapeutic alliance.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Building better pediatric surgeons: A sentiment analysis of online physician review websites.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2022Article
- The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with the Patient/Client Use of Report Cards, Physician Rating Websites, Social Media, and Google for Hospital and Physician Selection: A Nationwide Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Patient Utilization of Online Information and its Influence on Orthopedic Surgeon Selection: Cross-sectional Survey of Patient Beliefs and Behaviors.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Examining the Determinants of Patient Perception of Physician Review Helpfulness across Different Disease Severities: A Machine Learning Approach.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) are a device people use actively and passively, although their objective capabilities are insufficient when it comes to judging the medical performance and qualification of physicians. PRWs are an innovation born of the potential of the Internet and boosted very much by the longstanding policy of improving and encouraging patient participation in medical decision-making. A mismatch is feared between patient motivations to participate and their capabilities of doing so well. Awareness of such a mismatch might contribute to some skepticism of patient-written physician reviews on PRWs.
objectiveWe intend to test whether health literacy is able to dampen the effects that a patient-written review of a physician's performance might have on physician choice.
methodsAn experiment was conducted within a survey interview. Participants were put into a fictitious decision situation in which they had to choose between two physicians on the basis of their profiles on a PRW. One of the physician profiles contained the experimental stimulus in the form of a friendly and a critical written review. The dependent variable was physician choice. An attitude differential, trust differential, and two measures of health literacy, the newest vital sign as an example of a performance-based measure and eHealth Literacy Scale as an example of a perception-based measure, were tested for roles as intermediary variables. Analysis traced the influence of the review tendency on the dependent variables and a possible moderating effect of health literacy on these influences.
resultsReviews of a physician's competence and medical skill affected participant choice of a physician. High health literacy dampened these effects only in the case of the perception-based measure and only for the negative review. Correspondingly, the effect of the review tendency appeared to be stronger for the positive review. Attitudes and trust only affected physician choice when included as covariants, considerably increasing the variance explained by regression models.
conclusionsFindings sustain physician worries that even one negative PRW review can affect patient choice and damage doctors' reputations. Hopes that health literacy might raise awareness of the poor basis of physician reviews and ratings given by patients have some foundation.
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.