Abstract
BackgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants’ attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician.MethodsA mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician.ResultsA total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders’ gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders’ age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources.ConclusionsWhereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.
Highlights
When searching for a new physician, patients typically want to find a physician who is a good physician—clinically expert and, at the same time, interested in them, kind, courteous, empathetic, and caring [1]
(3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that Physician rating websites (PRWs) were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources
Grounded in the assumptions of a theoretical consumer choice model [11], PRWs are a type of public reporting activity and have 2 key aims: (1) influencing patient decision making by increasing the chance that those patients who obtain information will choose better quality organizations or individuals [11-12] and (2) driving quality improvement by identifying aspects of care needing improvement so that changes can be made in practice [11-12]
Summary
When searching for a new physician, patients typically want to find a physician who is a good physician—clinically expert and, at the same time, interested in them, kind, courteous, empathetic, and caring [1]. A number of shortcomings of PRWs have been identified in the literature [19] These include rating being anonymous, and not risk-adjusted and vulnerable to fraud, and a low number of ratings that are overwhelmingly positive [19]. This has raised concerns about the representativeness, validity, and usefulness of information on PRWs [19]. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
