Cargando…

Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis

BACKGROUND: Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pike, C William, Zillioux, Jacqueline, Rapp, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6632102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31267982
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12436
_version_ 1783435669190737920
author Pike, C William
Zillioux, Jacqueline
Rapp, David
author_facet Pike, C William
Zillioux, Jacqueline
Rapp, David
author_sort Pike, C William
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating. METHODS: We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating. RESULTS: From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 (“excellent”) (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 (“poor”) (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6632102
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66321022019-07-30 Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis Pike, C William Zillioux, Jacqueline Rapp, David J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating. METHODS: We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating. RESULTS: From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 (“excellent”) (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 (“poor”) (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating. JMIR Publications 2019-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6632102/ /pubmed/31267982 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12436 Text en ©C William Pike, Jacqueline Zillioux, David Rapp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.07.2019. 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 Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Pike, C William
Zillioux, Jacqueline
Rapp, David
Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title_full Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title_fullStr Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title_short Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
title_sort online ratings of urologists: comprehensive analysis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6632102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31267982
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12436
work_keys_str_mv AT pikecwilliam onlineratingsofurologistscomprehensiveanalysis
AT zilliouxjacqueline onlineratingsofurologistscomprehensiveanalysis
AT rappdavid onlineratingsofurologistscomprehensiveanalysis