Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What explains very poor Yelp reviews of oral and maxillofacial surgeons in private practice?
Stanbouly, Dani; Baron, Michael; Pierre, Ralph; Khan, Osman A; Fahmy, Rana; Caraballo, Bryan A; Choi, Ju Yeon; Arce, Kevin; Tannyhill, R John.
Afiliação
  • Stanbouly D; Dental Student, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ds3840@cumc.columbia.edu.
  • Baron M; Resident, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, USA.
  • Pierre R; Dental Student, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  • Khan OA; Dental Student, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  • Fahmy R; Dental Student, The University of British Columbia Faculty of Dentistry, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Caraballo BA; Dental Student, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  • Choi JY; Dental Student, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  • Arce K; Assistant Professor of Surgery and Division Chair, Section of Head & Neck Oncologic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Tannyhill RJ; OMFS Residency Program Director and Assistant Professor, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36529671
OBJECTIVE: Websites that maintain online physician ratings, such as Yelp.com, have been growing in popularity throughout the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors increase the risk for very poor reviews (1 out of 5 stars) on Yelp.com for oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) in private practice. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data on OMSs from Yelp.com. Predictor variables included clinician characteristics, practice characteristics, and review characteristics. The primary outcome variable was a very poor review. Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for a very poor review. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 3802 reviews. Relative to male clinicians, female clinicians were 2.7 times (P < .01) more likely to receive a very poor review. Clinicians who completed residency during the 1970s were over 4.5 times (P < .01) more likely to receive a very poor review relative to clinicians who completed residency during the 2010s. Relative to clinical reviews, nonclinical reviews were more likely (odds ratio = 2.6, P < .01) to be very poor and clinical and nonclinical reviews were less likely (odds ration = 0.5, P < .01) to be very poor. CONCLUSIONS: Nonclinical reviews were more likely to be very poor relative to clinical reviews. Several clinician factors, including female sex and completing OMS residency during the 1970s, were risk factors for receiving a very poor review.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Satisfação do Paciente / Cirurgiões Bucomaxilofaciais Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Satisfação do Paciente / Cirurgiões Bucomaxilofaciais Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article