Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have highlighted gender differences in web-based physician reviews; however, so far, no study has linked web-based ratings with quality of care. OBJECTIVE: We compared a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (web-based ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior) to understand how patients’ perceptions and evaluations of physicians differ based on the physician’s gender. METHODS: We used data from a large web-based physician review website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implemented paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of separate groups of physicians. Then, we enriched these findings by using the National Research Council Canada word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to reviews for different subpopulations according to gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating. RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews between male and female physicians. Numerical ratings are lower and sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male physicians are still associated with positive reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Given the growing impact of web-based reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different dynamics of reviews for male and female physicians is important for consumers and platform architects who may revisit their platform design.