» Articles » PMID: 20464523

Patients' Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: an Analysis of Physician-rating Websites

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2010 May 14
PMID 20464523
Citations 103
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Internet-based social networking tools that allow users to share content have enabled a new form of public reporting of physician performance: the physician-rating website.

Objective: To describe the structure and content of physician-rating websites and to assess the extent to which a patient might find them valuable.

Methods: We searched Google for websites that allowed patients to review physicians in the US. We included websites that met predetermined criteria, identified common elements of these websites, and recorded website characteristics. We then searched the websites for reviews of a random sample of 300 Boston physicians. Finally, we separately analyzed quantitative and narrative reviews.

Results: We identified 33 physician-rating websites, which contained 190 reviews for 81 physicians. Most reviews were positive (88%). Six percent were negative, and six percent were neutral. Generalists and subspecialists did not significantly differ in number or nature of reviews. We identified several narrative reviews that appeared to be written by the physicians themselves.

Conclusion: Physician-rating websites offer patients a novel way to provide feedback and obtain information about physician performance. Despite controversy surrounding these sites, their use by patients has been limited to date, and a majority of reviews appear to be positive.

Citing Articles

Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews.

Madanay F, Bundorf M, Ubel P JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(2):e2460018.

PMID: 39951262 PMC: 11829228. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60018.


Categorizing Extremely Positive Five-Star Online Reviews for Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons: A Retrospective Study.

Anastasio A, Baumann A, Kiwinda L, Ruderman L, Hitchman K, Hanselman A Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e71932.

PMID: 39564028 PMC: 11576059. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.71932.


Can you know before you go? Information about disability accommodations on US hospital websites.

Kannam A, Haywood C, Morris M, Huang L, Singer T, Bajaj G J Hosp Med. 2024; 20(2):109-119.

PMID: 39113236 PMC: 11797531. DOI: 10.1002/jhm.13477.


What Patients Say About Their Orthopaedic Hand and Wrist Surgeons: A Qualitative Analysis of Negative Reviews on Yelp.

Pollock J, Mujahed T, Smith J, Arthur J, Brinkman J, Atkinson C J Wrist Surg. 2024; 13(3):202-207.

PMID: 38808180 PMC: 11129890. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768924.


The Relationship Between Anthropometric Z-Score Measurements and Ocular Structures in Turkish Children.

Bulut E, SakallioGlu A, Dayi O, Alacamli G Rom J Ophthalmol. 2024; 67(4):374-380.

PMID: 38239419 PMC: 10793364. DOI: 10.22336/rjo.2023.59.


References
1.
Lagu T, Kaufman E, Asch D, Armstrong K . Content of weblogs written by health professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(10):1642-6. PMC: 2533366. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6. View

2.
McCartney M . Will doctor rating sites improve the quality of care? No. BMJ. 2009; 338:b1033. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b1033. View

3.
Jha A, Orav E, Zheng J, Epstein A . Patients' perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(18):1921-31. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0804116. View

4.
Schattner A, Bronstein A, Jellin N . Information and shared decision-making are top patients' priorities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006; 6:21. PMC: 1431526. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-21. View

5.
Bacon N . Will doctor rating sites improve standards of care? Yes. BMJ. 2009; 338:b1030. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b1030. View