Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites
- 1.5k Downloads
Internet-based social networking tools that allow users to share content have enabled a new form of public reporting of physician performance: the physician-rating website.
To describe the structure and content of physician-rating websites and to assess the extent to which a patient might find them valuable.
We searched Google for websites that allowed patients to review physicians in the US. We included websites that met predetermined criteria, identified common elements of these websites, and recorded website characteristics. We then searched the websites for reviews of a random sample of 300 Boston physicians. Finally, we separately analyzed quantitative and narrative reviews.
We identified 33 physician-rating websites, which contained 190 reviews for 81 physicians. Most reviews were positive (88%). Six percent were negative, and six percent were neutral. Generalists and subspecialists did not significantly differ in number or nature of reviews. We identified several narrative reviews that appeared to be written by the physicians themselves.
Physician-rating websites offer patients a novel way to provide feedback and obtain information about physician performance. Despite controversy surrounding these sites, their use by patients has been limited to date, and a majority of reviews appear to be positive.
KEY WORDSphysician-rating websites social networking public reporting
The authors thank David A. Asch of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania for his help in editing this manuscript, Ms. Aruna Priya for her help with statistical analysis, and Ms. Long-Chau Van and Ms. Jill Avrunin for their assistance with manuscript preparation.
Financial or material support
The study was conducted with funding from the Center for Quality of Care Research at Baystate Medical Center.
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Lagu, Mr. Hannon, Dr. Rothberg, and Dr. Lindenauer have no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Rothberg is the recipient of a clinical scientist development award from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
- 1.Aligning forces for quality: Local efforts to transform American health care. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2010. Available at: http://www.forces4quality.org/about-af4q [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 2.2009 Healthcare Quality Report. Minnesota Community Measurement; 2009. Available at: http://www.mncm.org/site/ [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 4.2008 update on consumers' views of patient safety and quality information. The Kaiser Family Foundation; 2008. Available at: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr101508pkg.cfm [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 6.Sarasohn-Kahn J. The Wisdom of Patients: Health Care Meets Online Social Media-CHCF.org. Available at: http://www.chcf.org/topics/chronicdisease/index.cfm?itemID=133631 [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 8.Given R. MD Rating Sites: Current State of the Space and Future Prospects. The Health Care Blog. 2008. Available at: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/11/md-rating-sites.html [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 11.Dolan P. Patients rarely use online ratings to pick physicians. June 23/30, 2008. AMedNews.com. 2008. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/06/23/bil10623.htm [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 13.Just Looking: Consumer Use of the Internet to Manage Care. California HealthCare Foundation; 2007. Available at: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=133641 [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 14.Pho K. How doctors should deal with physician rating sites. KevinMD.com. 2009. Available at: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/05/how-doctors-should-deal-with-physician-rating-sites.html [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 15.Donnel R. Rate MDs and other internet physician rating sites. Notes from Dr. RW. 2009. Available at: http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2009/05/rate-mds-and-other-internet-physician.html [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- 16.Solomon S. Doc's RateMDs battle turns ugly. National Review of Medicine. 2007. Available at: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/05_15/4_patients_practice09_9.html [Accessed April 12, 2010].