Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.
online physician ratings
reputation management
urology
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 07 2019
02 07 2019
Historique:
received:
06
10
2018
accepted:
02
05
2019
revised:
23
03
2019
entrez:
4
7
2019
pubmed:
4
7
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians. We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating. We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating. From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen. In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
METHODS
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
RESULTS
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31267982
pii: v21i7e12436
doi: 10.2196/12436
pmc: PMC6632102
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12436Informations de copyright
©C William Pike, Jacqueline Zillioux, David Rapp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.07.2019.
Références
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Feb;27(2):119-129
pubmed: 28600452
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jul 26;19(7):e275
pubmed: 28747292
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1083-1091
pubmed: 28939228
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):756-7
pubmed: 23443421
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 24;14(1):e38
pubmed: 22366336
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Jul;140(7):635-8
pubmed: 24876073
HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):177-180
pubmed: 29983660
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Aug 16;20(8):e254
pubmed: 30115610
Adv Surg. 2015;49:221-33
pubmed: 26299501
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 08;21(4):e12521
pubmed: 30958276
Physician Exec. 2013 Jan-Feb;39(1):6-8, 10, 12
pubmed: 23437751
JMIR Cancer. 2019 Apr 01;5(1):e10530
pubmed: 30932863
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 27;21(3):e12007
pubmed: 30916654
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 16;13(4):e95
pubmed: 22088924
Methods Inf Med. 2012;51(2):112-20
pubmed: 22101427
Pain Physician. 2009 May-Jun;12(3):659-64
pubmed: 19461833
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 12;20(11):e11141
pubmed: 30425030
J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2269-73
pubmed: 23228385
Ann Surg. 2014 Oct;260(4):592-8; discussion 598-600
pubmed: 25203875
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 13;18(12):e324
pubmed: 27965191
JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5
pubmed: 24549555
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 07;10:332
pubmed: 21138579
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Sep;25(9):942-6
pubmed: 20464523
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018 Mar/Apr;24(2):109-114
pubmed: 29474282
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 08;20(11):e289
pubmed: 30409768
JAMA. 2017 Feb 21;317(7):766-768
pubmed: 28241346