Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lagu T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6456827 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis.
Lagu Tara T Norton Caroline M CM Russo Lindsey M LM Priya Aruna A Goff Sarah L SL Lindenauer Peter K PK
Journal of medical Internet research 20190327 3
<h4>Background</h4>Some hospitals' and health systems' websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys.<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clin ...[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:BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveOn 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC9706386 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7551103 | 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: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: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:BackgroundWhen a heart defect is prenatally diagnosed in the fetus, expectant parents experience a great need for information about various topics. After the diagnosis, the Web is used for supplemental information, and the scarcity of research calls attention to the need to explore patient information websites from the perspectives of the intended consumers.ObjectiveThe overarching aim of this study was to explore the quality of Swedish patient information websites about congenital heart defects, from the perspectives of individuals with experience of a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defect in the fetus.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study of websites identified through systematic searches in the two most used Web-based search engines. Of the total 80 screened hits, 10 hits led to patient information websites about congenital heart defects. A quality assessment tool inspired by a previous study was used to evaluate each website's appearance, details, relevance, suitability, information about treatment choices, and overall quality. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1, representing the lowest score, to 5, representing the highest score. Each website was assessed individually by persons with experience of continued (n=4) and terminated (n=5) pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis. Assessments were analyzed with Kendall's coefficient of concordance W, Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman's test, and a Wilcoxon-Nemenyi-McDonald-Thompson test. In addition, each assessor submitted written responses to open-ended questions in the quality assessment tool, and two joint focus group discussions were conducted with each group of assessors. The qualitative data were analyzed with inductive manifest content analysis.ResultsAssessments represented a low score (median=2.0) for treatment choices and moderate scores (median=3.0) for appearance, details, relevance, suitability, and overall quality. No website had a median of the highest achievable score for any of the questions in the quality assessment tool. Medians of the lowest achievable score were found in questions about treatment choices (n=4 websites), details (n=2 websites), suitability (n=1 website), and overall quality (n=1 website). Websites had significantly different scores for appearance (P=.01), details (P<.001), relevance (P<.001), suitability (P<.001), treatment choices (P=.04), and overall quality (P<.001). The content analysis of the qualitative data generated six categories: (1) advertisements, (2) comprehensiveness, (3) design, (4) illustrations and pictures, (5) language, and (6) trustworthiness. Various issues with the included websites were highlighted, including the use of inappropriate advertisements, biased information, poor illustrations, complex language, and poor trustworthiness.ConclusionsFrom the perspectives of the intended consumers, patient information websites about congenital heart defects are, to a large extent, inadequate tools for supplemental information following a prenatal diagnosis. Health professionals should initiate discussions with patients about their intentions to use the Web, inform them about the varied quality in the Web-based landscape, and offer recommendations for appropriate Web-based sources.
| S-EPMC5615220 | 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:BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsHealth 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).
| S-EPMC5432667 | 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