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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGrath, Robert J, Priestley, Jennifer Lewis, Zhou, Yiyun, Culligan, Patrick J
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