Dataset Information

Digital Footprint of Academic Vascular Surgeons in the Southern United States on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-sectional Evaluation Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The internet has become a popular platform for patients to obtain information and to review the health care providers they interact with. However, little is known about the digital footprint of vascular surgeons and their interactions with patients on social media.

Objective

This study aims to understand the activity of academic vascular surgeons on physician rating websites.

Methods

Information on attending vascular surgeons affiliated with vascular residency or with fellowships in the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery (SAVS) was collected from public sources. A listing of websites containing physician ratings was obtained via literature reviews and Google search. Open access websites with either qualitative or quantitative evaluations of vascular surgeons were included. Closed access websites were excluded. Ranking scores from each website were converted to a standard 5-point scale for comparison.

Results

A total of 6238 quantitative and 967 qualitative reviews were written for 287 physicians (236 males, 82.2%) across 16 websites that met the inclusion criteria out of the 62 websites screened. The surgeons affiliated with the integrated vascular residency and vascular fellowship programs in SAVS had a median of 8 (IQR 7-10) profiles across 16 websites, with only 1 surgeon having no web presence in any of the websites. The median number of quantitative ratings for each physician was 17 (IQR 6-34, range 1-137) and the median number of narrative reviews was 3 (IQR 2-6, range 1-28). Vitals, WebMD, and Healthgrades were the only 3 websites where over a quarter of the physicians were rated, and those rated had more than 5 ratings on average. The median score for the quantitative reviews was 4.4 (IQR 4.0-4.9). Most narrative reviews (758/967, 78.4%) were positive, but 20.2% (195/967) were considered negative; only 1.4% (14/967) were considered equivocal. No statistical difference was found in the number of quantitative reviews or in the overall average score in the physician ratings between physicians with social media profiles and those without social media profiles (departmental social media profile: median 23 vs 15, respectively, P=.22; personal social media profile: median 19 vs 14, respectively, P=.08).

Conclusions

The representation of vascular surgeons on physician rating websites is varied, with the majority of the vascular surgeons represented only in half of the physician rating websites The number of quantitative and qualitative reviews for academic vascular surgeons is low. No vascular surgeon responded to any of the reviews. The activity of vascular surgeons in this area of social media is low and reflects only a small digital footprint that patients can reach and review.

SUBMITTER: Yan Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8411431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.