ArticleJMIR formative research2022
Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient complaints differ for male and female obstetrician-gynecologists: an exploration of 20 years of complaints data in Alberta, Canada.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Examining the Role of Physician Characteristics in Web-Based Verified Primary Care Physician Reviews: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Year 2022 in Medical Natural Language Processing: Availability of Language Models as a Step in the Democratization of NLP in the Biomedical Area.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have highlighted gender differences in web-based physician reviews; however, so far, no study has linked web-based ratings with quality of care.
objectiveWe compared a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (web-based ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior) to understand how patients' perceptions and evaluations of physicians differ based on the physician's gender.
methodsWe used data from a large web-based physician review website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implemented paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of separate groups of physicians. Then, we enriched these findings by using the National Research Council Canada word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to reviews for different subpopulations according to gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating.
resultsWe found statistically significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews between male and female physicians. Numerical ratings are lower and sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male physicians are still associated with positive reviews.
conclusionsGiven the growing impact of web-based reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different dynamics of reviews for male and female physicians is important for consumers and platform architects who may revisit their platform design.
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.