Cargando…
The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings
BACKGROUND: Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. METHODS...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5913572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29631992 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.9350 |
_version_ | 1783316569055559680 |
---|---|
author | McGrath, Robert J Priestley, Jennifer Lewis Zhou, Yiyun Culligan, Patrick J |
author_facet | McGrath, Robert J Priestley, Jennifer Lewis Zhou, Yiyun Culligan, Patrick J |
author_sort | McGrath, Robert J |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. METHODS: We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as “America’s Top Doctors” through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not. RESULTS: Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed “Top Doctor” versus those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5913572 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59135722018-05-03 The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings McGrath, Robert J Priestley, Jennifer Lewis Zhou, Yiyun Culligan, Patrick J Interact J Med Res Short Paper BACKGROUND: Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. METHODS: We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as “America’s Top Doctors” through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not. RESULTS: Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed “Top Doctor” versus those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization. JMIR Publications 2018-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5913572/ /pubmed/29631992 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.9350 Text en ©Robert J McGrath, Jennifer Lewis Priestley, Yiyun Zhou, Patrick J Culligan. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 09.04.2018. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Short Paper McGrath, Robert J Priestley, Jennifer Lewis Zhou, Yiyun Culligan, Patrick J The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title | The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title_full | The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title_fullStr | The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title_full_unstemmed | The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title_short | The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings |
title_sort | validity of online patient ratings of physicians: analysis of physician peer reviews and patient ratings |
topic | Short Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5913572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29631992 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.9350 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcgrathrobertj thevalidityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT priestleyjenniferlewis thevalidityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT zhouyiyun thevalidityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT culliganpatrickj thevalidityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT mcgrathrobertj validityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT priestleyjenniferlewis validityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT zhouyiyun validityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings AT culliganpatrickj validityofonlinepatientratingsofphysiciansanalysisofphysicianpeerreviewsandpatientratings |