Dishonest Physician Reviews: Challenging Physician Online Reviews and the Appeals Process.

Physician reviews influence how patients seek care, but dishonest reviews can be detrimental to a physician practice. It is unclear if reviews can be challenged, and processes differ and are not readily apparent. The objective of this observational study was to determine the ability to challenge dishonest negative reviews online. Commonly used websites for physician reviews as of August 2021 were utilized: Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Zocdoc, Yelp, and Google Business. Each review platform's website was tested for leaving a physician review and process of appeal and possible removal of a negative review. The process for appeal and the steps involved in posting and appealing a review were determined, whether individuals are verified patients and criteria for verification, how physicians can respond, and the process of appealing false or defamatory reviews.Any individual can leave reviews by searching for a physician's name or practice and visiting their profile page and can then provide a rating and written review of their experience with the physician. Many require verification to prevent suspicious activity but not proof of a medical visit, allowing significant potential for inaccurate review postings. Posting a review can be done by anyone without verification of a visit. It is challenging for physicians to remove negative online reviews, as most review platforms have strict policies against. This review concludes that physicians should be aware of their online presence and the steps that can be taken to address issues to mitigate adverse effects on their practices.

An artificial intelligence-powered, patient-centric digital tool for self-management of chronic pain: a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how a behavioral health, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered, digital self-management tool affects the daily functions in adults with chronic back and neck pain. DESIGN: Eligible subjects were enrolled in a 12-week prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study and instructed to use the digital coach daily. Primary outcome was a change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) scores for pain interference. Secondary outcomes were changes in PROMIS physical function, anxiety, depression, pain intensity scores and pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores. METHODS: Subjects logged daily activities, using PainDrainerTM, and data analyzed by the AI engine. Questionnaire and web-based data were collected at 6 and 12 weeks and compared to subjects' baseline. RESULTS: Subjects completed the 6- (n = 41) and 12-week (n = 34) questionnaires. A statistically significant Minimal Important Difference (MID) for pain interference was demonstrated in 57.5% of the subjects. Similarly, MID for physical function was demonstrated in 72.5% of the subjects. A pre- to post-intervention improvement in depression score was also statistically significant, observed in 100% of subjects, as was the improvement in anxiety scores, evident in 81.3% of the subjects. PCS mean scores was also significantly decreased at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Chronic pain self-management, using an AI-powered, digital coach anchored in behavioral health principles significantly improved subjects' pain interference, physical function, depression, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing over the 12-week study period.