ArticleApplied radiation oncology2020
Radiation Oncologist Perceptions and Utilization of Digital Patient Assessment Platforms.
Article in Applied radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Creating work-life balance among physicians in the age of digitalization: the role of self-consciousness and communication - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Patient Experience Performance at a Primary Cancer Center Versus Affiliated Community Facilities.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient engagement is increasing in the presence of digital patient assessment platforms, or physician rating websites. Despite this rapid growth, data remains insufficient regarding how these evaluations impact radiation oncologists.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess radiation oncologists worldwide on their awareness and noted effects of digital patient assessment platforms.
methodsAn electronic survey was delivered to 6,199 members of the American Society of Radiation Oncology. Subjects were radiation oncologists practicing throughout the world. The survey consisted of 14 questions focused on demographics, practice details, patient volume, institutional utilization of patient reviews, and perceptions of radiation oncologists on health care reviews provided by patients.
resultsThere were 447 responses from practicing radiation oncologists in total, 321 (72%) of which are in the US. Most respondents (228; 51%) either agreed or strongly agreed that patients consider online reviews when deciding which physician to visit. Of all respondents, 188 (42%) reported that their institution checks their online feedback, whereas 157 (36%) and 99 (22%) respectively reported not knowing, or to their knowledge their institution does not check their online feedback. Respondents who saw more than the average number of consults per week were significantly more likely to receive negative feedback (
conclusionsRadiation oncologists need to be aware that self-reported patient assessments are a data point in the quality of a physician and health care establishment. To best ensure appropriate feedback of a physician's capabilities as a doctor, leadership and employee alignment for patient experience are now more important than ever.
Identifiers
33024796PMC7536100W3092330713What 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.