Dataset Information

Association Between Crowdsourced Health Care Facility Ratings and Mortality in US Counties.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Mortality across US counties varies considerably, from 252 to 1847 deaths per 100 000 people in 2018. Although patient satisfaction with health care is associated with patient- and facility-level health outcomes, the association between health care satisfaction and community-level health outcomes is not known.

Objective

To examine the association between online ratings of health care facilities and mortality across US counties and to identify language specific to 1-star (lowest rating) and 5-star (highest rating) reviews in counties with high vs low mortality.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective population-based cross-sectional study examined reviews and ratings of 95 120 essential health care facilities across 1301 US counties. Counties that had at least 1 essential health care facility with reviews available on Yelp, an online review platform, were included. Essential health care was defined according to the 10 essential health benefits covered by Affordable Care Act insurance plans.

Main outcomes and measures

The mean rating of essential health care facilities was calculated by county from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Ratings were on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with 1 being the worst rating and 5 the best. County-level composite measures of health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment were obtained from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health County Health Rankings database. The 2018 age-adjusted mortality by county was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research database. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the association between mean facility rating and mortality, adjusting for county health ranking variables. Words with frequencies of use that were significantly different across 1-star and 5-star reviews in counties with high vs low mortality were identified.

Results

The 95 120 facilities meeting inclusion criteria were distributed across 1301 of 3142 US counties (41.4%). At the county level, a 1-point increase in mean rating was associated with a mean (SE) age-adjusted decrease of 18.05 (3.68) deaths per 100 000 people (P < .001). Words specific to 1-star reviews in high-mortality counties included told, rude, and wait, and words specific to 5-star reviews in low-mortality counties included Dr, pain, and professional.

Conclusions and relevance

This study found that, at the county level, higher online ratings of essential health care facilities were associated with lower mortality. Equivalent online ratings did not necessarily reflect equivalent experiences of care across counties with different mortality levels, as evidenced by variations in the frequency of use of key words in reviews. These findings suggest that online ratings and reviews may provide insight into unequal experiences of essential health care.

SUBMITTER: Stokes DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8527362 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePatient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.ObjectiveTo assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.ResultsThe final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.Conclusions and relevanceThis quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been public health interventions that aim to reduce barriers to health care access by extending opening hours of health care facilities. However, the impact of opening hours from the patient's perspective is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the relationship between temporal accessibility of health care services and how patients rate the providers on Yelp, an online review website that is popular in the United States. Using crowdsourced open Internet data, such as Yelp, can help circumvent the traditional survey method.MethodsFrom Yelp's limited academic dataset, this study examined the pattern of visits to health care providers and performed a secondary analysis to examine the association between patient rating (measured by Yelp's rating) and temporal accessibility of health care services (measured by opening hours) using ordinal logistic regression models. Other covariates included were whether an appointment was required, the type of health care service, the region of the health care service provider, the number of reviews the health care service provider received in the past, the number of nearby competitors, the mean rating of competitors, and the standard deviation of competitors' ratings.ResultsFrom the 2085 health care service providers identified, opening hours during certain periods, the type of health care service, and the variability of competitors' ratings showed an association with patient rating. Most of the visits to health care service providers took place between normal working hours (9 AM-5 PM) from Sunday to Thursday, and the least on Saturday. A model fitted to the entire sample showed that increasing hours during normal working hours on Monday (OR 0.926, 95% CI 0.880-0.973, P=0.03), Saturday (OR 0.897, 95% CI 0.860-0.935, P<0.001), Sunday (OR 0.904, 95% CI 0.841-0.970, P=0.005), and outside normal working hours on Friday (OR 0.872, 95% CI 0.760-0.998, P=0.048) was associated with receiving lower ratings. But increasing hours during outside normal working hours on Sunday was associated with receiving higher ratings (OR 1.400, 95% CI 1.036-1.924, P=0.03). There were also observed differences in patient ratings among the health care services types, but not geographically or by appointment requirement.ConclusionsThis study shows that public health interventions, especially those involving opening hours, could use crowdsourced open Internet data to enhance the evidence base for decision making and evaluation in the future. This study illustrates one example of how Yelp data could be used to understand patient experiences with health care services, making a case for future research for exploring online reviews as a health dataset.

Project description:ImportanceImproving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known.ObjectiveTo determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021.ExposuresDialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics.ResultsOf 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.

Project description:BackgroundAccounting for nearly one-third of all deaths, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States. Adverse health behaviors are major determinants of this high incidence of disease. Examining local food and physical activity environments and population characteristics in a poor, rural state may highlight underlying drivers of these behaviors. We aimed to identify demographic and environmental factors associated with both obesity and overall poor cardiovascular health (CVH) behaviors in Maine counties.MethodsOur cross-sectional study analyzed 40,398 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2011-2014 respondents alongside county-level United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Environment Atlas 2010-2012 measures of the built environment (i.e., density of restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores, and fitness facilities; food store access; and county income). Poor CVH score was defined as exhibiting greater than 5 out of the 7 risk factors defined by the American Heart Association (current smoking, physical inactivity, obesity, poor diet, hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol). Multivariable logistic regression models described the contributions of built environment variables to obesity and overall poor CVH score after adjustment for demographic controls.ResultsBoth demographic and environmental factors were associated with obesity and overall poor CVH. After adjustment for demographics (age, sex, personal income, and education), environmental characteristics most strongly associated with obesity included low full-service restaurant density (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.24-1.45), low county median household income (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.21-1.42) and high convenience store density (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.32). The strongest predictors of overall poor CVH behaviors were low county median household income (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.13-1.51), low full-service restaurant density (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19-1.59), and low fitness facility density (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.11-1.46).ConclusionsIn a rural state, both demographic and environmental factors predict overall poor CVH. These findings may help inform communities and policymakers of the impact of both social determinants of health and local environments on health outcomes.