Bifurcation of Patient Reviews: An Analysis of Trends in Online Ratings.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
29
12
2019
accepted:
25
02
2020
entrez:
23
5
2020
pubmed:
23
5
2020
medline:
23
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Online reviews have become increasingly important drivers of healthcare decisions. Data published by the Pew Research Center from 2016 suggest that 84% of adult Americans use online rating sites to search for information about health issues. The authors sought to analyze physician reviews collected from a large online consumer rating site to better understand characteristics that are associated with positive and negative review behavior. Published patient reviews from RealSelf were sampled over a 12-year period (June 2006 to August 2018). SQL, Python, and Python SciPy were used for statistical analysis on 156,965 reviews of 10,376 unique physicians. Python VADER was used to quantify consumer sentiment with review text as input. Surgical procedures tended to be higher rated than nonsurgical treatments. The highest-rated procedures were breast augmentation, rejuvenation of the female genitalia, and facelift. The lowest-rated surgical procedures were buttock augmentation, rhinoplasty, and eyelid surgery. The mean physician rating was 4.6, with 87% of reviews being 5-star and 5% being 1-star. Sentiment analysis revealed positive consumer sentiment in 5-star reviews and negative sentiment in 1-star reviews. These findings suggest that online reviews of doctors are polarized by extreme ratings. Within the surgical category, significant differences in ratings exist between treatments. Perceived problems with postprocedural care are most associated with negative reviews, whereas satisfaction with a physician's answers to patient questions is most associated with positive reviews. Polarization of physician reviews may suggest selection bias in reviewer participation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Online reviews have become increasingly important drivers of healthcare decisions. Data published by the Pew Research Center from 2016 suggest that 84% of adult Americans use online rating sites to search for information about health issues. The authors sought to analyze physician reviews collected from a large online consumer rating site to better understand characteristics that are associated with positive and negative review behavior.
METHODS
METHODS
Published patient reviews from RealSelf were sampled over a 12-year period (June 2006 to August 2018). SQL, Python, and Python SciPy were used for statistical analysis on 156,965 reviews of 10,376 unique physicians. Python VADER was used to quantify consumer sentiment with review text as input.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Surgical procedures tended to be higher rated than nonsurgical treatments. The highest-rated procedures were breast augmentation, rejuvenation of the female genitalia, and facelift. The lowest-rated surgical procedures were buttock augmentation, rhinoplasty, and eyelid surgery. The mean physician rating was 4.6, with 87% of reviews being 5-star and 5% being 1-star. Sentiment analysis revealed positive consumer sentiment in 5-star reviews and negative sentiment in 1-star reviews.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These findings suggest that online reviews of doctors are polarized by extreme ratings. Within the surgical category, significant differences in ratings exist between treatments. Perceived problems with postprocedural care are most associated with negative reviews, whereas satisfaction with a physician's answers to patient questions is most associated with positive reviews. Polarization of physician reviews may suggest selection bias in reviewer participation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32440443
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002781
pmc: PMC7209897
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e2781Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: Dr. Devgan was the Chief Medical Officer/Chief Medical Editor for RealSelf from 2018-2020. Stephen Fox is the Director of Data Science at RealSelf. Tugce Ozturk is a Communications Data Scientist at RealSelf. Elizabeth Klein has no financial information to disclose.
Références
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Dec;36(6):1292-5
pubmed: 23052381
Aesthet Surg J. 2016 Jan;36(1):NP1-5
pubmed: 26063834
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012 Sep;46(3-4):248-51
pubmed: 22909242
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015 Apr;39(2):270-7
pubmed: 25697277
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Mar 25;7(3):e2127
pubmed: 31044109
JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5
pubmed: 24549555
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 May;141(5):663e-673e
pubmed: 29697608
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 06;13(4):e113
pubmed: 22146737
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):820-825
pubmed: 30148793
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar;143(3):734-742
pubmed: 30817644