Effect of Negative Online Reviews and Physician Responses on Health Consumers' Choice: Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of online medical services. Although some researchers have investigated how numerical ratings affect consumer choice, limited studies have focused on the effect of negative reviews that most concern physicians. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate how negative review features, including proportion (low/high), claim type (evaluative/factual), and physician response (absence/presence), influence consumers' physician evaluation process under conditions in which a physician's overall rating is high. METHODS: Using a 2×2×2 between-subject decision-controlled experiment, this study examined participants' judgment on physicians with different textual reviews. Collected data were analyzed using the t test and partial least squares-structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Negative reviews decreased consumers' physician selection intention. The negative review proportion (ß=-0.371, P<.001) and claim type (ß=-0.343, P<.001) had a greater effect on consumers' physician selection intention compared to the physician response (ß=0.194, P<.001). A high negative review proportion, factual negative reviews, and the absence of a physician response significantly reduced consumers' physician selection intention compared to their counterparts. Consumers' locus attributions on the negative reviews affected their evaluation process. Physician attribution mediated the effects of review proportion (ß=-0.150, P<.001), review claim type (ß=-0.068, P=.01), and physician response (ß=0.167, P<.001) on consumer choice. Reviewer attribution also mediated the effects of review proportion (ß=-0.071, P<.001), review claim type (ß=-0.025, P=.01), and physician response (ß=0.096, P<.001) on consumer choice. The moderating effects of the physician response on the relationship between review proportion and physician attribution (ß=-0.185, P<.001), review proportion and reviewer attribution (ß=-0.110, P<.001), claim type and physician attribution (ß=-0.123, P=.003), and claim type and reviewer attribution (ß=-0.074, P=.04) were all significant. CONCLUSIONS: Negative review features and the physician response significantly influence consumer choice through the causal attribution to physicians and reviewers. Physician attribution has a greater effect on consumers' physician selection intention than reviewer attribution does. The presence of a physician response decreases the influence of negative reviews through direct and moderating effects. We propose some practical implications for physicians, health care providers, and online medical service platforms.

The Influence of Paid Memberships on Physician Rating Websites With the Example of the German Portal Jameda: Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of Germans see a deficit in information availability for choosing a physician. An increasing number of people use physician rating websites and decide upon the information provided. In Germany, the most popular physician rating website is Jameda.de, which offers monthly paid membership plans. The platform operator states that paid memberships have no influence on the rating indicators or list placement. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate whether a physician's membership status might be related to his or her quantitative evaluation factors and to possibly quantify these effects. METHODS: Physician profiles were retrieved through the search mask on Jameda.de website. Physicians from 8 disciplines in Germany's 12 most populous cities were specified as search criteria. Data Analysis and visualization were done with Matlab. Significance testing was conducted using a single factor ANOVA test followed by a multiple comparison test (Tukey Test). For analysis, the profiles were grouped according to member status (nonpaying, Gold, and Platinum) and analyzed according to the target variables-physician rating score, individual patient's ratings, number of evaluations, recommendation quota, number of colleague recommendations, and profile views. RESULTS: A total of 21,837 nonpaying profiles, 2904 Gold, and 808 Platinum member profiles were acquired. Statistically significant differences were found between paying (Gold and Platinum) and nonpaying profiles in all parameters we examined. The distribution of patient reviews differed also by membership status. Paying profiles had more ratings, a better overall physician rating, a higher recommendation quota, and more colleague recommendations, and they were visited more frequently than nonpaying physicians' profiles. Statistically significant differences were found in most evaluation parameters within the paid membership packages in the sample analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Paid physician profiles could be interpreted to be optimized for decision-making criteria of potential patients. With our data, it is not possible to draw any conclusions of mechanisms that alter physicians' ratings. Further research is needed to investigate the causes for the observed effects.

The Impact of Social Influence on the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites: Moderated Mediation Analysis Using a Mixed Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) have become increasingly important in the cross-section between health and digitalization. Social influence plays a crucial role in human behavior in many domains of life, as can be demonstrated by the increase in high-profile influential individuals such as social media influencers (SMIs). Particularly in the health-specific environment, the opinion of family and friends has a significant influence on health-related decisions. However, so far, there has been little discussion about the role of social influence as an antecedent of behavioral intention to use PRWs. OBJECTIVE: On the basis of theories of social psychology and technology acceptance and theories from the economic perspective, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. METHODS: We conducted 2 studies by applying a mixed methods approach including a total of 712 participants from the Austrian population. The impact of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs was investigated through linear regression and mediation and moderated mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro 4.0 in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp). RESULTS: The 2 studies show similar results. In study 1, an experiment, no direct effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs could be detected. However, an indirect effect of social influence on the behavioral intention to use PRWs via credibility (b=0.572; P=.005) and performance expectancy (b=0.340; P<.001) could be confirmed. The results of study 2, a cross-sectional study, demonstrate that social influence seems to have a direct impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs (b=0.410; P<.001). However, when calculating the proposed mediation model, it becomes clear that this impact may partly be explained through the 2 mediator variables-credibility (b=0.208; P<.001) and performance expectancy (b=0.312; P<.001). In contrast to the observed direct and indirect effect, neither demographic nor psychographic variables have a significant moderating impact on the influencing chain in study 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an indication that social influence has at least an indirect impact on the behavioral intention to use PRWs. It was observed that this impact is exerted through credibility and performance expectancy. According to the findings of both studies, social influence has the potential to boost the use of PRWs. As a result, these web-based networks might be a promising future interface between health care and digitalization, allowing health care practitioners to gain a beneficial external impact while also learning from feedback. Social influence nowadays is not just limited to friends and family but can also be exerted by SMIs in the domain of PRW use. Thus, from a marketing perspective, PRW providers could think of collaborating with SMIs, and our results could contribute to stimulating discussion in this vein.

One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website.

BACKGROUND: Feedback from patients is an essential element of a patient-oriented health care system. Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a key way patients can provide feedback online. This study analyzes an entire decade of online ratings for all medical specialties on a German PRW. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine how ratings posted on a German PRW have developed over the past decade. In particular, it aimed to explore (1) the distribution of ratings according to time-related aspects (year, month, day of the week, and hour of the day) between 2010 and 2019, (2) the number of physicians with ratings, (3) the average number of ratings per physician, (4) the average rating, (5) whether differences exist between medical specialties, and (6) the characteristics of the patients rating physicians. METHODS: All scaled-survey online ratings that were posted on the German PRW jameda between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. RESULTS: In total, 1,906,146 ratings were posted on jameda between 2010 and 2019 for 127,921 physicians. The number of rated physicians increased constantly from 19,305 in 2010 to 82,511 in 2018. The average number of ratings per rated physicians increased from 1.65 (SD 1.56) in 2010 to 3.19 (SD 4.69) in 2019. Overall, 75.2% (1,432,624/1,906,146) of all ratings were in the best rating category of "very good," and 5.7% (107,912/1,906,146) of the ratings were in the lowest category of "insufficient." However, the mean of all ratings was 1.76 (SD 1.53) on the German school grade 6-point rating scale (1 being the best) with a relatively constant distribution over time. General practitioners, internists, and gynecologists received the highest number of ratings (343,242, 266,899, and 232,914, respectively). Male patients, those of higher age, and those covered by private health insurance gave significantly (P<.001) more favorable evaluations compared to their counterparts. Physicians with a lower number of ratings tended to receive ratings across the rating scale, while physicians with a higher number of ratings tended to have better ratings. Physicians with between 21 and 50 online ratings received the lowest ratings (mean 1.95, SD 0.84), while physicians with >100 ratings received the best ratings (mean 1.34, SD 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the most comprehensive analyses of PRW ratings to date. More than half of all German physicians have been rated on jameda each year since 2016, and the overall average number of ratings per rated physicians nearly doubled over the decade. Nevertheless, we could also observe a decline in the number of ratings over the last 2 years. Future studies should investigate the most recent development in the number of ratings on both other German and international PRWs as well as reasons for the heterogeneity in online ratings by medical specialty.

Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings.

BACKGROUND: Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments. METHODS: The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS: Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician's communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician's caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician's friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, online physician-rating websites have become prominent and exert considerable influence on patients' decisions. However, the quality of these decisions depends on the quality of data that these systems collect. Thus, there is a need to examine the various data quality issues with physician-rating websites. OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literature on online patient-reported physician ratings and reviews. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2020. RESULTS: A total of 423 articles were screened. From these, 49 papers describing 18 unique data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites were included. Using a data quality framework, we classified these issues into the following four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessible. Among the papers, 53% (26/49) reported intrinsic data quality errors, 61% (30/49) highlighted contextual data quality issues, 8% (4/49) discussed representational data quality issues, and 27% (13/49) emphasized accessibility data quality. More than half the papers discussed multiple categories of data quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this review demonstrate the presence of a range of data quality issues. While intrinsic and contextual factors have been well-researched, accessibility and representational issues warrant more attention from researchers, as well as practitioners. In particular, representational factors, such as the impact of inline advertisements and the positioning of positive reviews on the first few pages, are usually deliberate and result from the business model of physician-rating websites. The impact of these factors on data quality has not been addressed adequately and requires further investigation.

Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a device people use actively and passively, although their objective capabilities are insufficient when it comes to judging the medical performance and qualification of physicians. PRWs are an innovation born of the potential of the Internet and boosted very much by the longstanding policy of improving and encouraging patient participation in medical decision-making. A mismatch is feared between patient motivations to participate and their capabilities of doing so well. Awareness of such a mismatch might contribute to some skepticism of patient-written physician reviews on PRWs. OBJECTIVE: We intend to test whether health literacy is able to dampen the effects that a patient-written review of a physician's performance might have on physician choice. METHODS: An experiment was conducted within a survey interview. Participants were put into a fictitious decision situation in which they had to choose between two physicians on the basis of their profiles on a PRW. One of the physician profiles contained the experimental stimulus in the form of a friendly and a critical written review. The dependent variable was physician choice. An attitude differential, trust differential, and two measures of health literacy, the newest vital sign as an example of a performance-based measure and eHealth Literacy Scale as an example of a perception-based measure, were tested for roles as intermediary variables. Analysis traced the influence of the review tendency on the dependent variables and a possible moderating effect of health literacy on these influences. RESULTS: Reviews of a physician's competence and medical skill affected participant choice of a physician. High health literacy dampened these effects only in the case of the perception-based measure and only for the negative review. Correspondingly, the effect of the review tendency appeared to be stronger for the positive review. Attitudes and trust only affected physician choice when included as covariants, considerably increasing the variance explained by regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Findings sustain physician worries that even one negative PRW review can affect patient choice and damage doctors' reputations. Hopes that health literacy might raise awareness of the poor basis of physician reviews and ratings given by patients have some foundation.

The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments.

BACKGROUND: The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients' experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments. METHODS: A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS: The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs' comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists. CONCLUSIONS: From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs. METHODS: In November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician's quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites. RESULTS: Overall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

The Effect of Online Effort and Reputation of Physicians on Patients' Choice: 3-Wave Data Analysis of China's Good Doctor Website.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, patients are seeking physician information more frequently via the internet. Physician-rating websites (PRWs) have been recognized as the most convenient way to gain insight and detailed information about specific physicians before receiving consultation. However, little is known about how the information provided on PRWs may affect patients' decisions to seek medical advice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether the physicians' online efforts and their reputation have a relationship with patients' choice of physician on PRWs. METHODS: A model, based on social exchange theory, was developed to analyze the factors associated with the number of online patients. A 3-wave data collection exercise, covering 4037 physicians on China's Good Doctor website, was conducted during the months of February, April, and June 2017. Increases in consultation in a 60-day period were used as the dependent variable, whereas 2 series of data were analyzed using linear regression modeling. The fixed-effect model was used to analyze the 3-wave data. RESULTS: The adjusted R2 value in the linear regression models were 0.28 and 0.27, whereas in the fixed-effect model, it was .30. Both the linear regression and fixed-effect models yielded a good fit. A positive effect of physicians' effort on the aggregated number of online patients was identified in all models (R2=0.30 and R2=0.37 in 2 regression models; R2=0.23 in fixed effect model; P<.001). The proxies of physicians' reputations indicated different results, with total number of page views of physicians' homepages (R2=0.43 and R2=0.46; R2=0.16; P<.001) and number of votes received (R2=0.33 and R2=0.27; R2=0.43; P<.001) being seen as positive. Virtual gifts were not significant in all models, whereas thank-you messages were only significant in the fixed-effect model (R2=0.11; P=.02). The effort made by physicians online is positively associated with their aggregated number of patients consulted, whereas the effect of a physician's reputation remains uncertain. The control effect of a physician's title and hospital's level was not significant in all linear regressions. CONCLUSIONS: Both the effort and reputation of physicians online contribute to the increased number of online patients' consultation; however, the influence of a physician's reputation varies. This may imply that physicians' online effort and reputation are critical in attracting patients and that strategic manipulation of physician profiles is worthy of study. Practical insights are also discussed.

Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians' quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people's willingness to rate their physician on PRWs. METHODS: A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail. RESULTS: Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs. CONCLUSION: These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank. METHODS: A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools. RESULTS: The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.

Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed to allow all patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. At the beginning of 2010, a sample of 298 randomly selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia were searched for on 6 German PRWs to examine the frequency of ratings and evaluation tendencies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine (1) the number of identifiable physicians on German PRWs; (2) the number of rated physicians on German PRWs; (3) the average and maximum number of ratings per physician on German PRWs; (4) the average rating on German PRWs; (5) the website visitor ranking positions of German PRWs; and (6) how these data compare with 2010 results. METHODS: A random stratified sample of 298 selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia was generated. Every selected physician was searched for on the 6 PRWs (Jameda, Imedo, Docinsider, Esando, Topmedic, and Medführer) used in the 2010 study and a PRW, Arztnavigator, launched by Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK). RESULTS: The results were as follows: (1) Between 65.1% (194/298) on Imedo to 94.6% (282/298) on AOK-Arztnavigator of the physicians were identified on the selected PRWs. (2) Between 16.4% (49/298) on Esando to 83.2% (248/298) on Jameda of the sample had been rated at least once. (3) The average number of ratings per physician ranged from 1.2 (Esando) to 7.5 (AOK-Arztnavigator). The maximum number of ratings per physician ranged from 3 (Esando) to 115 (Docinsider), indicating an increase compared with the ratings of 2 to 27 in the 2010 study sample. (4) The average converted standardized rating (1=positive, 2=neutral, and 3=negative) ranged from 1.0 (Medführer) to 1.2 (Jameda and Topmedic). (5) Only Jameda (position 317) and Medführer (position 9796) were placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas there has been an overall increase in the number of ratings when summing up ratings from all 7 analyzed German PRWs, this represents an average addition of only 4 new ratings per physician in a year. The increase has also not been even across the PRWs, and it would be advisable for the users of PRWs to utilize a number of PRWs to ascertain the rating of any given physician. Further research is needed to identify barriers for patients to rate their physicians and to assist efforts to increase the number of ratings on PRWs to consequently improve the fairness and practical importance of PRWs.

Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants' awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants' attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician. METHODS: A mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents' awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician. RESULTS: A total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders' gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders' age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.

Physician Rating Websites: What Aspects Are Important to Identify a Good Doctor, and Are Patients Capable of Assessing Them? A Mixed-Methods Approach Including Physicians' and Health Care Consumers' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) offer health care consumers the opportunity to evaluate their doctor anonymously. However, physicians' professional training and experience create a vast knowledge gap in medical matters between physicians and patients. This raises ethical concerns about the relevance and significance of health care consumers' evaluation of physicians' performance. OBJECTIVE: To identify the aspects physician rating websites should offer for evaluation, this study investigated the aspects of physicians and their practice relevant for identifying a good doctor, and whether health care consumers are capable of evaluating these aspects. METHODS: In a first step, a Delphi study with physicians from 4 specializations was conducted, testing various indicators to identify a good physician. These indicators were theoretically derived from Donabedian, who classifies quality in health care into pillars of structure, process, and outcome. In a second step, a cross-sectional survey with health care consumers in Switzerland (N=211) was launched based on the indicators developed in the Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of these indicators to identify a good physician and whether they would feel capable to evaluate those aspects after the first visit to a physician. All indicators were ordered into a 4×4 grid based on evaluation and importance, as judged by the physicians and health care consumers. Agreement between the physicians and health care consumers was calculated applying Holsti's method. RESULTS: In the majority of aspects, physicians and health care consumers agreed on what facets of care were important and not important to identify a good physician and whether patients were able to evaluate them, yielding a level of agreement of 74.3%. The two parties agreed that the infrastructure, staff, organization, and interpersonal skills are both important for a good physician and can be evaluated by health care consumers. Technical skills of a doctor and outcomes of care were also judged to be very important, but both parties agreed that they would not be evaluable by health care consumers. CONCLUSIONS: Health care consumers in Switzerland show a high appraisal of the importance of physician-approved criteria for assessing health care performance and a moderate self-perception of how capable they are of assessing the quality and performance of a physician. This study supports that health care consumers are differentiating between aspects they perceive they would be able to evaluate after a visit to a physician (such as attributes of structure and the interpersonal skills of a doctor), and others that lay beyond their ability to make an accurate judgment about (such as technical skills of a physician and outcome of care).

Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites.

BACKGROUND: The number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs. OBJECTIVE: We focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers. METHODS: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients' knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions. RESULTS: A total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t967=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ(2) 1=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ(2) 4=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ(2) 1=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t489=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t520=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t612=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t559=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t367=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t619=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.

What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Consumers are increasingly accessing health-related information via mobile devices. Recently, several apps to rate and locate physicians have been released in the United States and Germany. However, knowledge about what kinds of variables explain usage of mobile physician-rating apps is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes factors influencing the adoption of and willingness to pay for mobile physician-rating apps. A structural equation model was developed based on the Technology Acceptance Model and the literature on health-related information searches and usage of mobile apps. Relationships in the model were analyzed for moderating effects of physician-rating website (PRW) usage. METHODS: A total of 1006 randomly selected German patients who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the 3 months before the beginning of the survey were randomly selected and surveyed. A total of 958 usable questionnaires were analyzed by partial least squares path modeling and moderator analyses. RESULTS: The suggested model yielded a high model fit. We found that perceived ease of use (PEOU) of the Internet to gain health-related information, the sociodemographic variables age and gender, and the psychographic variables digital literacy, feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general, patients' value of health-related knowledgeability, as well as the information-seeking behavior variables regarding the amount of daily private Internet use for health-related information, frequency of using apps for health-related information in the past, and attitude toward PRWs significantly affected the adoption of mobile physician-rating apps. The sociodemographic variable age, but not gender, and the psychographic variables feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general and patients' value of health-related knowledgeability, but not digital literacy, were significant predictors of willingness to pay. Frequency of using apps for health-related information in the past and attitude toward PRWs, but not the amount of daily Internet use for health-related information, were significant predictors of willingness to pay. The perceived usefulness of the Internet to gain health-related information and the amount of daily Internet use in general did not have any significant effect on both of the endogenous variables. The moderation analysis with the group comparisons for users and nonusers of PRWs revealed that the attitude toward PRWs had significantly more impact on the adoption and willingness to pay for mobile physician-rating apps in the nonuser group. CONCLUSIONS: Important variables that contribute to the adoption of a mobile physician-rating app and the willingness to pay for it were identified. The results of this study are important for researchers because they can provide important insights about the variables that influence the acceptance of apps that allow for ratings of physicians. They are also useful for creators of mobile physician-rating apps because they can help tailor mobile physician-rating apps to the consumers' characteristics and needs.

Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the following study was to explore the patient feedback on academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) practicing in the United States (US) using the physician rating website (PRW) Healthgrades.com. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on academic OMSs in the US using data from Healthgrades.com. Predictor variables included OMS characteristics or rating characteristics. The primary outcome variable was overall rating. Linear regression was used to determine independent predictors of overall rating. RESULTS: The final study sample consisted of 309 academic OMSs (mean age, 56.4 years; males, 86.4%). Age group was significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.034). Dual-degree OMSs had a higher mean overall rating than single-degree OMSs (4.26 vs. 3.98, p = 0.012). The number of ratings was also significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.019). Upon controlling for all other variables, merely age group was independently associated with overall rating. Specifically, OMSs aged 41-55 years were associated with a higher overall rating (+0.96, p = 0.022) relative to OMSs aged >70 years. CONCLUSIONS: The OPRs on Healthgrades.com for academic OMSs within the US are generally positive. Age was the only independent predictor for overall rating - younger OMSs (aged 41-55 years) were independently associated with a higher overall rating relative to older OMSs (aged >70 years). The new generation of younger OMSs is likely to be aware of PRWs and their implications in the growing world of online exposure.