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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |