Abstract
BackgroundWebsites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.MethodsA systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.ResultsThe majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.ConclusionsThis study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.
Highlights
The internet has become an invaluable resource for any kind of question or query one may search an answer for
J Med Internet Res 2018 | vol 20 | iss. 6 | e212 | p. 1 quality of physician-rating website (PRW) and the rating tools they present to their users are largely unknown
The content and quality of PRWs is a concern for both medical practitioners and website users
Summary
Background The internet has become an invaluable resource for any kind of question or query one may search an answer for. Health care consumers on the other hand desire more quality of care information to improve their choices but have difficulties using such reports because of the complexity of the material [6,7] To sum up, both physicians and health care consumers demand quality standards on PRWs that increase transparency while protecting both parties’ freedom of speech and privacy. Both physicians and health care consumers demand quality standards on PRWs that increase transparency while protecting both parties’ freedom of speech and privacy These insights call for an assessment of the availability and quality of PRWs to evaluate to what extent physicians’ and health care consumers’ worries are justified. Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
