Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mulgund P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7551103 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.
Mulgund Pavankumar P Sharman Raj R Anand Priya P Shekhar Shashank S Karadi Priya P
Journal of medical Internet research 20200928 9
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>This study's objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Backgroud:Physician-rating websites (PRWs) are designed to publicly report physician quality information while bringing forth a sense of transparency. This study looks to identify the influence PRWs have on a patient's choice of orthopedic hand surgeon while stratifying patient physician preference by various demographic characteristics. Methods:This survey-based study was conducted in a suburban outpatient orthopedic hand practice. All patients between 18 to 89 years of age who presented for an appointment were asked to participate. Survey questions aimed to identify patient demographics and the sources patients used to choose their hand surgeon. Results:Overall, 104 patients completed our survey. Our study population was predominantly between 51 and 70 years of age (50.0%), women (60.6%), and Caucasian (84.6%), received a general education degree or high school diploma (36.5%), was employed (49.0%), and owned private health insurance (59.6%). One hundred and two patients (98.1%) answered that their physician's reputation is important. Seventy-five patients (72.1%) reported that they heard about their surgeon by physician referral, while only two (1.9%) used online search engines. Sixty-six patients (63.5%) noted that physician referrals were most trustworthy. Only 10 patients (9.6%) consulted PRWs to choose their surgeon, most of whom were younger than 50 years (n = 6), Caucasian (n = 8), and employed (n = 7) and had schooling after high school (n = 8). Conclusions:Despite increases in digital information exchange platforms, PRWs are not commonly used by suburban orthopedic hand patients to exchange information about or choose their hand surgeon. Patients still primarily rely on physician referrals and word of mouth from family and friends to choose their surgeon.
| S-EPMC7237253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsumer-driven healthcare and an increasing emphasis on quality metrics have encouraged patient engagement in the rating of healthcare. As such, online physician rating websites have become mainstream and may play a potential role in future healthcare policy.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate online patient ratings for US sports medicine surgeons, determine predictors of positive ratings and analyze for inter-website scoring correlation.MethodsThe American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) member directory was sampled. Surgeon demographic and rating data were searched on three online physicians rating websites: HealthGrades.com (HG), RateMDs.com (RM) and Vitals.com (V). Written rating comments were categorized as relating to the following: surgeon competence, surgeon affability and process of care. Bivariate linear regression, Pearson correlation and multivariable analyses were used to determine factors associated with positive ratings.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-five sports medicine surgeons were included. Two hundred seventy-one (99%) had ratings on at least one of the three websites. Sports surgeons were rated highly across all three websites (mean >4.0/5); however, there was only a low to moderate degree of correlation among websites. On HG, female surgeons and surgeons in academia were more likely to receive higher overall ratings. Across all three websites, increased number of years in practice inversely correlated with ratings; this relationship neared significance for HG and was significant for RM. A surgeon's online presence or geographic location was not associated with higher ratings. In multivariable regression analysis for ratings on HG, female sex was the only significant predictor of higher ratings. Two thousand three hundred forty-one written comments were analyzed: perceived surgeon competence and communication influenced the direction of ratings for the top and bottom tier surgeons.ConclusionThere was a low degree of correlation among online websites for surgeon ratings. Female surgeons and those with fewer years in practice appear to have higher ratings on these websites; comment content analysis suggests that high and low ratings are influenced by perceived surgeon competence and affability.
| S-EPMC5026665 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6024097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Some hospitals' and health systems' websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to examine the prevalence and content of health system websites reporting these data and compare narratives from these sites to narratives from commercial physician-rating sites. METHODS:We identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clinician reviews. For 140 randomly selected clinicians, we extracted the number of star ratings and narrative comments. We conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of these physicians' narrative reviews and compared these to a random sample of reviews from commercial physician-rating websites. We described composite quantitative scores for sampled physicians and compared the frequency of themes between reviews drawn from health systems' and commercial physician-rating websites. RESULTS:We identified 42 health systems that published composite star ratings (42/42, 100%) or narratives (33/42, 79%). Most (27/42, 64%) stated that they excluded narratives deemed offensive. Of 140 clinicians, the majority had composite scores listed (star ratings: 122/140, 87.1%; narrative reviews: 114/140, 81.4%), with medians of 110 star ratings (IQR 42-175) and 25.5 (IQR 13-48) narratives. The rating median was 4.8 (IQR 4.7-4.9) out of five stars, and no clinician had a score less than 4.2. Compared to commercial physician-rating websites, we found significantly fewer negative comments on health system websites (35.5%, 76/214 vs 12.8%, 72/561, respectively; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:The lack of variation in star ratings on health system sites may make it difficult to differentiate between clinicians. Most health systems report that they remove offensive comments, and we notably found fewer negative comments on health system websites compared to commercial physician-rating sites.
| S-EPMC6456827 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe promise of digital health is principally dependent on the ability to electronically capture data that can be analyzed to improve decision-making. However, the ability to effectively harness data has proven elusive, largely because of the quality of the data captured. Despite the importance of data quality (DQ), an agreed-upon DQ taxonomy evades literature. When consolidated frameworks are developed, the dimensions are often fragmented, without consideration of the interrelationships among the dimensions or their resultant impact.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consolidated digital health DQ dimension and outcome (DQ-DO) framework to provide insights into 3 research questions: What are the dimensions of digital health DQ? How are the dimensions of digital health DQ related? and What are the impacts of digital health DQ?MethodsFollowing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a developmental systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature focusing on digital health DQ in predominately hospital settings. A total of 227 relevant articles were retrieved and inductively analyzed to identify digital health DQ dimensions and outcomes. The inductive analysis was performed through open coding, constant comparison, and card sorting with subject matter experts to identify digital health DQ dimensions and digital health DQ outcomes. Subsequently, a computer-assisted analysis was performed and verified by DQ experts to identify the interrelationships among the DQ dimensions and relationships between DQ dimensions and outcomes. The analysis resulted in the development of the DQ-DO framework.ResultsThe digital health DQ-DO framework consists of 6 dimensions of DQ, namely accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, contextual validity, and currency; interrelationships among the dimensions of digital health DQ, with consistency being the most influential dimension impacting all other digital health DQ dimensions; 5 digital health DQ outcomes, namely clinical, clinician, research-related, business process, and organizational outcomes; and relationships between the digital health DQ dimensions and DQ outcomes, with the consistency and accessibility dimensions impacting all DQ outcomes.ConclusionsThe DQ-DO framework developed in this study demonstrates the complexity of digital health DQ and the necessity for reducing digital health DQ issues. The framework further provides health care executives with holistic insights into DQ issues and resultant outcomes, which can help them prioritize which DQ-related problems to tackle first.
| S-EPMC10131725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsWhereas 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.
| S-EPMC5591403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs.MethodsIn 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionsIt 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.
| S-EPMC6688440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough online physician rating information is popular among Chinese health consumers, the limited number of reviews greatly hampers the effective usage of this information. To date, little has been discussed on the variables that influence online physician rating from the users' perspective.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the factors associated with the actual behavior and intention of generating online physician rating information in urban China.MethodsA web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted, and the valid responses of 1371 Chinese health consumers were recorded. Using a pilot interview, we analyzed the effects of demographics, health variables, cognitive variables, and technology-related variables on online physician rating information generation. Binary multivariate logistic regression, multiple linear regression, one-way analysis of variance analyses, and independent samples t test were performed to analyze the rating behavior and the intentions of the health consumers. The survey instrument was designed based on the existing literature and the pilot interview.ResultsIn this survey, 56.7% (778/1371) of the responders used online physician rating information, and 20.9% (287/1371) of the responders rated the physicians on the physician rating website at least once (posters). The actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors and was significantly associated with seeking web-based physician information (odds ratio [OR] 5.548, 95% CI 3.072-10.017; P<.001), usage of web-based physician service (OR 2.771, 95% CI 1.979-3.879; P<.001), health information-seeking ability (OR 1.138, 95% CI 0.993-1.304; P=.04), serious disease development (OR 2.699, 95% CI 1.889-3.856; P<.001), good medical experience (OR 2.149, 95% CI 1.473-3.135; P<.001), altruism (OR 0.612, 95% CI 0.483-0.774; P<.001), self-efficacy (OR 1.453, 95% CI 1.182-1.787; P<.001), and trust in online physician rating information (OR 1.315, 95% CI 1.089-1.586; P=.004). Some factors influencing the intentions of the posters and nonposters rating the physicians were different, and the rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking web-based physician information (β=.486; P=.007), using web-based medical service (β=.420; P=.002), ability to seek health information (β=.193; P=.002), rating habits (β=.105; P=.02), altruism (β=.414; P<.001), self-efficacy (β=.102; P=.06), trust (β=.351; P<.001), and perceived ease of use (β=.275; P<.001) served as significant predictors of the rating intention. For nonposters, ability to seek health information (β=.077; P=.003), chronic disease development (β=.092; P=.06), bad medical experience (β=.047; P=.02), rating habits (β=.085; P<.001), altruism (β=.411; P<.001), self-efficacy (β=.171; P<.001), trust (β=.252; P<.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians (β=.109; P<.001) were significantly associated with the rating intention.ConclusionsWe showed that different factors affected the physician rating behavior and rating intention. Health-related variables influenced the physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were critical in the rating intentions. We have proposed some practical implications for physician rating websites and physicians to promote online physician rating information generation.
| S-EPMC7303836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To date, the digital assessment of service experiences represents a decisive process step of a feedback culture in numerous economic areas. In view of this digitalization of service assessments, the importance of Physician Rating Websites (PRWs) has also increased steadily in recent years. Even though these websites could be perceived as a powerful communication tool for the exchange of health specific information, the knowledge about whether and how different population segments use these portals has been limited so far. For this reason, our aim was to investigate the level of awareness regarding PRWs among the study population and to discover how users interact with this specific type of online portals. We performed an online survey including 558 participants. To ensure the attention and integrity of participants, attention checks were included in the questionnaire. Study participants who did not exceed the mentioned security levels were excluded from the study. Statistical analyses were carried out, using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. To illustrate the relationship between demographic variables and dependent variables, two tailed chi square tests were performed. Comparison of means and t-testing was used to investigate the relationship between psychographic variables and the dependent variables. In addition to that, the awareness levels regarding different rating portals were evaluated using descriptive methods. Our results suggest that the general awareness regarding PRWs is relatively high (75.6%, 423/558), especially among female (x21 = 9.880, P = .002), middle-aged (x29 = 26.810, P = .002), more highly educated (x24 = 19.038, P = .001), urban (x21 = 6.274, P = .012), digitally literate (t203 = 2.63, P = .009) individuals and particularly among respondents with a higher eHealth literacy (t203 = 2.37, P = .019). Even though more than three quarters of the respondents know that PRWs exist, compared to other rating platforms, they are only in the lower midfield. The upper ranks are taken by websites on which restaurant visits (98.9%, 552/558), hotel stays (97.7%, 545/558) or movies (95.5%, 533/558) can be rated. The most popular PRWs in Austria include Docfinder.at (31.3%, 175/558; 77.8%, 434/558) followed by the evaluation tools provided by Google.at (8.24%, 46/558; 70.3%, 392/558) and Herold.at (1.61%, 9/558; 44.8%, 250/558). In Austria, PRWs seem to be characterized by a high degree of interaction (89.2%, 498/558) with a wide variety of different types of interactions. While many respondents use PRWs to retrieve general information (83.2%, 464/558), there are significantly fewer who read physicians' reviews (60.9%, 340/558) and use this portal to select a physician (60.6%, 338/558). Respondents who have already rated a doctor themselves belong to the smallest group accounting for just 14.7% (82/558). Significant effects regarding the interaction with PRWs exist between different genders, ages, education levels, marital statuses, occupations and areas of living. In addition to that, respondents with better feelings towards the internet, greater digital literacy as well as a higher eHealth literacy were also characterized with a higher interaction rate regarding PRWs. According to the high level of awareness of and interaction with PRWs within our study population, PRWs appear to be a successful medium for health-related communication. Especially for female, middle-aged, more highly educated, urban and more technology savvy population segments, PRWs seem to represent an effective tool to support the health-specific decision-making process.
| S-EPMC9803240 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6792026 | biostudies-literature