ArticleResearch in health services & regions2025
Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.
Article in Research in health services & regions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline reviews influence how patients select primary care providers. However, little is known about the language used in such reviews, regional differences in tone or content, and reviewer behavior.
objectiveThis study aims to analyze Google reviews of general practices in four selected German regions - two urban (Lübeck, Dresden) and two rural (Main-Tauber District, Mecklenburg Lake Plateau) - to identify linguistic patterns, reviewer characteristics, and implications for quality improvement.
methodsWe extracted all publicly available Google Maps entries for “Hausarzt [City], Deutschland” using an Application Programming Interface (API). Natural Language Processing (NLP) was applied to analyze the content and metadata of reviews. Descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression identified word combinations associated with high and low ratings. Results were compared across regions.
resultsA total of 9307 reviews from 1854 practices were analyzed. Ratings were predominantly positive (78.7% 5-star) with no regional differences. Reviewers who wrote positive reviews tended to have written more reviews overall. Common terms in positive reviews included “attentive”, “competent,” and “takes time”; negative reviews featured “unfriendly” and “long wait”. Lexical patterns and predictors were consistent across all regions.
conclusionGoogle reviews provide some insights into patient perceptions of primary care. Key expectations, such as friendliness and attentiveness, appear stable across urban and rural settings, with minimal regional variation in review language.
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.