ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Google star ratings of Canadian hospitals: a nationwide cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. 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.
- Understanding online hospital patient reviews: a nationwide cross-sectional analysis of polarity, actionability and themes.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction with Healthcare Services in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on patients' self-reported hospital experience can help guide quality improvement. Traditional patient survey programmes are resource intensive, and results are not always publicly accessible. Unsolicited online hospital reviews are an alternative data source; however, the nature of online reviews for Canadian hospitals is unknown.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study of Canadian acute care hospitals with more than 10 Google Reviews during the 2018-2019 fiscal year. We characterised the volume and distribution of Google Reviews of Canadian hospitals, and assessed their correlation with hospital characteristics (teaching status, size, occupancy rate, length of stay, resource utilisation) and Canadian Patient Experience Survey on Inpatient Care (CPES-IC) scores.
results167 out of 523 (31.9%) acute care hospitals in Canada met the inclusion criteria. Among included hospitals, there was a total of 10 395 Google Reviews and a median of 35 reviews per hospital. The mean Google Star Rating for included hospitals was 2.85 out of 5, with a range of 1.36-4.57. Teaching hospitals had significantly higher mean Google Star Ratings compared with non-teaching hospitals (3.16 vs 2.81, p <0.01). There was a weak, positive correlation between hospitals' Google Star Ratings and CPES-IC 'Overall Hospital Experience' scores (p =0.04), but no significant correlation between Google Star Ratings and other hospital characteristics or subcategories of CPES-IC scores.
interpretationThere is significant interhospital variation in patients' self-reported care experiences at Canadian acute care hospitals. Online reviews can serve as a readily accessible source of real-time data for hospitals to monitor and improve the patient experience.
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.