What Patients Say About Their Doctors Online: A Qualitative Content Analysis
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Doctor rating websites are a burgeoning trend, yet little is known about their content.
To explore the content of Internet reviews about primary care physicians.
Qualitative content analysis of 712 online reviews from two rating websites. We purposively sampled reviews of 445 primary care doctors (internists and family practitioners) from four geographically dispersed U.S. urban locations. We report the major themes, and because this is a large sample, the frequencies of domains within our coding scheme.
Most reviews (63%) were positive, recommending the physician. We found a major distinction between global reviews, “Dr. B is a great doctor.” vs. specific descriptions which included interpersonal manner, “She always listens to what I have to say and answers all my questions.”; technical competence “No matter who she has recommended re: MD specialists, this MD has done everything right.”; and/or systems issues such as appointment and telephone access. Among specific reviews, interpersonal manner “Dr. A is so compassionate.” and technical competence “He is knowledgeable, will research your case before giving you advice.” comments tended to be more positive (69% and 80%, respectively), whereas systems-issues comments “Staff is so-so, less professional than should be…” were more mixed (60% positive, 40% negative).
The majority of Internet reviews of primary care physicians are positive in nature. Our findings reaffirm that the care encounter extends beyond the patient–physician dyad; staff, access, and convenience all affect patient’s reviews of physicians. In addition, negative interpersonal reviews underscore the importance of well-perceived bedside manner for a successful patient–physician interaction.
- Shinchuk LM, Chiou P, Czarnowski V, Meleger AL. Demographics and attitudes of chronic-pain patients who seek online pain-related medical information: implications for healthcare providers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil;89(2):141-6.
- Hay MC, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Wick K, Giesser B. Why patients go online: multiple sclerosis, the Internet, and physician-patient communication. Neurologist. 2008;14(6):374–81. CrossRef
- Hay MC, Cadigan RJ, Khanna D, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Altman R, et al. Prepared patients: Internet information seeking by new rheumatology patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(4):575–82. CrossRef
- Rochman B. Health group therapy. Why so many patients are sharing their medical data online. Time;175(5):47-8.
- Frost J, Massagli M. PatientsLikeMe the case for a data-centered patient community and how ALS patients use the community to inform treatment decisions and manage pulmonary health. Chron Respir Dis. 2009;6(4):225–9.
- Fox S, Jones S. The Social Life of Health Information Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009.
- Feldman R. He may be friendly, but is your doctor competent? Indystar.com; 2010.
- Pasternak A, Scherger JE. Online reviews of physicians: what are your patients posting about you? Fam Pract Manag. 2009;16(3):9–11.
- Tuffs A. German doctors fear that performance rating websites may be libellous. (1468-5833 (Electronic)).
- Aungst H. Patients say the darnedest things. You can’t stop online ratings, but you can stop fretting about them. Med Econ. 2008;85(23):27–9.
- Beacon N, Margaret McCartney. Will doctor rating sites improve standard of care? BMJ. 2009;338:688–9. CrossRef
- Hodgkin PK. Doctor rating sites. Web based patient feedback. BMJ. 2009;338:b1377. CrossRef
- Freudenheim M. Noted Rater of Restaurants Brings Its Touch to Medicine New York Times; 2009.
- Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med;25(9):942-6.
- Fost D. The Coffee Was Lousy. The Wait Was Long. New York: New York Time; 2008.
- Borzekowski DL, Schenk S, Wilson JL, Peebles R. e-Ana and e-Mia: A content analysis of pro-eating disorder web sites. Am J Public Health;100(8):1526-34.
- Jenssen BP, Klein JD, Salazar LF, Daluga NA, DiClemente RJ. Exposure to tobacco on the Internet: content analysis of adolescents’ Internet use. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):e180–6. CrossRef
- Trochim W. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2000.
- Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1990.
- Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites. J Gen Intern Med.
- Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15(1):25–38.
- Robertson R, Dixon A, Le Grand J. Patient choice in general practice: the implications of patient satisfaction surveys. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):67–72. CrossRef
- Gerard K, Salisbury C, Street D, Pope C, Baxter H. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients’ preferences. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl 2):3–10. CrossRef
- Platonova EA, Kennedy KN, Shewchuk RM. Understanding patient satisfaction, trust, and loyalty to primary care physicians. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(6):696–712. CrossRef
- Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10(4):311–7. CrossRef
- Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(12):1829–43. CrossRef
- Sitzia J. How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11(4):319–28. CrossRef
- Lasek RJ, Barkley W, Harper DL, Rosenthal GE. An evaluation of the impact of nonresponse bias on patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care. 1997;35(6):646–52. CrossRef
- Davis MS. Variations in patients’ compliance with doctors’ advice: an empirical analysis of patterns o communication. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1968;58(2):274–88. CrossRef
- Comstock LM, Hooper EM, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Physician behaviors that correlate with patient satisfaction. J Med Educ. 1982;57(2):105–12. CrossRef
- Orth JE, Stiles WB, Scherwitz L, Hennrikus D, Vallbona C. Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients’ blood pressure control. Health Psychol. 1987;6(1):29–42. CrossRef
- Anderson RT, Camacho FT, Balkrishnan R. Willing to wait?: the influence of patient wait time on satisfaction with primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:31. CrossRef
- YELP. An introduction to Yelp. 2010.
- Mazor KM, Clauser BE, Field T, Yood RA, Gurwitz JH. A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1403–17. CrossRef
- Barkley WM, Furse DH. Changing priorities for improvement: the impact of low response rates in patient satisfaction. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996;22(6):427–33.
- Leader S, Perales PJ. Provision of primary-preventive health care services by obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(3):391–5. CrossRef
- Shear CL, Gipe BT, Mattheis JK, Levy MR. Provider continuity and quality of medical care. A retrospective analysis of prenatal and perinatal outcome. Med Care. 1983;21(12):1204–10. CrossRef
- Tates K, Meeuwesen L. Doctor-parent-child communication. A (re)view of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):839–51. CrossRef
- Tanner L. Doctors seek gag orders to stop patients’ online reviews. USA Today: The Associated Press; 2009.
- Lee TB. Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us". 2011.
- Church C. Mutual privacy agreements: a tool for medical practice protection. Ridge Business Journal. May 4, 2009.
- What Patients Say About Their Doctors Online: A Qualitative Content Analysis
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 27, Issue 6 , pp 685-692
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- patient satisfaction
- primary care
- family medicine
- patient–physician relationship
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA
- 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco General Hospital, Box 1364, 1001 Potrero, Bldg 10, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1364, USA
- 3. California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA