12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians’ quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people’s willingness to rate their physician on PRWs.

          Methods

          A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail.

          Results

          Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs.

          Conclusion

          These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Social Media and Rating Sites as Tools to Understanding Quality of Care: A Scoping Review

            Background Insight into the quality of health care is important for any stakeholder including patients, professionals, and governments. In light of a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient’s perspective, which is commonly done with surveys or focus groups. Unfortunately, these “traditional” methods have significant limitations that include social desirability bias, a time lag between experience and measurement, and difficulty reaching large groups of people. Information on social media could be of value to overcoming these limitations, since these new media are easy to use and are used by the majority of the population. Furthermore, an increasing number of people share health care experiences online or rate the quality of their health care provider on physician rating sites. The question is whether this information is relevant to determining or predicting the quality of health care. Objective The goal of our research was to systematically analyze the relation between information shared on social media and quality of care. Methods We performed a scoping review with the following goals: (1) to map the literature on the association between social media and quality of care, (2) to identify different mechanisms of this relationship, and (3) to determine a more detailed agenda for this relatively new research area. A recognized scoping review methodology was used. We developed a search strategy based on four themes: social media, patient experience, quality, and health care. Four online scientific databases were searched, articles were screened, and data extracted. Results related to the research question were described and categorized according to type of social media. Furthermore, national and international stakeholders were consulted throughout the study, to discuss and interpret results. Results Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 21 were concerned with health care rating sites. Several studies indicate a relationship between information on social media and quality of health care. However, some drawbacks exist, especially regarding the use of rating sites. For example, since rating is anonymous, rating values are not risk adjusted and therefore vulnerable to fraud. Also, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population. Conclusions Social media and particularly rating sites are an interesting new source of information about quality of care from the patient’s perspective. This new source should be used to complement traditional methods, since measuring quality of care via social media has other, but not less serious, limitations. Future research should explore whether social media are suitable in practice for patients, health insurers, and governments to help them judge the quality performance of professionals and organizations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Do Health Care Providers Use Online Patient Ratings to Improve the Quality of Care? Results From an Online-Based Cross-Sectional Study

              Background Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care. Objective Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care. Methods We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers’ demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care. Results Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings. Conclusions Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                s.mclennan@unibas.ch
                daniel.strech@charite.de
                Kahrass.Hannes@mh-hannover.de
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                29 August 2018
                29 August 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 670
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0642, GRID grid.6612.3, Institute for Biomedical Ethics, , University of Basel, ; Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
                [2 ]Berlin Institute of Health, Quest Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin, Germany
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9529 9877, GRID grid.10423.34, Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, ; Hannover, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2019-6253
                Article
                3492
                10.1186/s12913-018-3492-0
                6116491
                30157842
                9b44722c-e429-4fd4-89cb-5b5dfc65dc11
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 5 February 2018
                : 23 August 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005624, Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                physician rating websites,patient satisfaction
                Health & Social care
                physician rating websites, patient satisfaction

                Comments

                Comment on this article