Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37140959›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.

Nina Morena, Nicholas Zelt, Diana Nguyen, Emilie Dionne, Carrie A Rentschler, Devon Greyson, Ari N Meguerditchian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors.

Nina MorenaArt History and Communication Studies, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6904-478X
Nicholas ZeltFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9684-5910
Diana NguyenMcGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7019-984X
Emilie DionneSt Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1542-7472
Carrie A RentschlerArt History and Communication Studies, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-0559
Devon GreysonSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4860-384X
Ari N MeguerditchianMcGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4798-8135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients increasingly use web-based evaluation tools to assess their physicians, health care teams, and overall medical experience.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the extent to which the standardized physician competencies of the CanMEDS Framework are present in web-based patient reviews (WPRs) and to identify patients' perception of important physician qualities in the context of quality cancer care.

methodsThe WPRs of all university-affiliated medical oncologists in midsized cities with medical schools in the province of Ontario (Canada) were collected. Two reviewers (1 communication studies researcher and 1 health care professional) independently assessed the WPRs according to the CanMEDS Framework and identified common themes. Comment scores were then evaluated to identify κ agreement rates between the reviewers, and a descriptive quantitative analysis of the cohort was completed. Following the quantitative analysis, an inductive thematic analysis was performed.

resultsThis study identified 49 actively practicing university-affiliated medical oncologists in midsized urban areas in Ontario. A total of 473 WPRs reviewing these 49 physicians were identified. Among the CanMEDS competencies, those defining the roles of medical experts, communicators, and professionals were the most prevalent (303/473, 64%; 182/473, 38%; and 129/473, 27%, respectively). Common themes in WPRs include medical skill and knowledge, interpersonal skills, and answering questions (from the patient to the physician). Detailed WPRs tend to include the following elements: experience and connection; discussion and evaluation of the physician's knowledge, professionalism, interpersonal skills, and punctuality; in positive reviews, the expression of feelings of gratitude and a recommendation; and in negative reviews, discouragement from seeking the physician's care. Patients' perception of medical skills is less specific than their perception of interpersonal qualities, although medical skills are the most commented-on element of care in WPRs. Patients' perception of interpersonal skills (listening, compassion, and overall caring demeanor) and other experiential phenomena, such as feeling rushed during appointments, is often specific and detailed. Details about a physician's interpersonal skills or "bedside manner" are highly perceived, valued, and shareable in an WPR context. A small number of WPRs reflected a distinction between the value of medical skills and that of interpersonal skills. The authors of these WPRs claimed that for them, a physician's medical skills and competence are more important than their interpersonal skills.

conclusionsCanMEDS roles and competencies that are explicitly patient facing (ie, those directly experienced by patients in their interactions with physicians and through the care that physicians provide) are the most likely to be present and reported on in WPRs. The findings demonstrate the opportunity to learn from WPRs, not simply to discern physicians' popularity but to grasp what patients may expect from their physicians. In this context, WPRs can represent a method for the measurement and assessment of patient-facing physician competency.

Indexed as

cancer careCanMEDSmedical oncologyphysician rating websitesRateMDsweb-based patient reviewsweb-based physician rating

Identifiers

PMID37140959
PMCPMC10196901

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.