Skip to main content
Log in

Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript



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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Aligning forces for quality: Local efforts to transform American health care. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2010. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  2. 2009 Healthcare Quality Report. Minnesota Community Measurement; 2009. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  3. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients' perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1921–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 2008 update on consumers' views of patient safety and quality information. The Kaiser Family Foundation; 2008. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  5. Fung CH, Elliott MN, Hays RD, et al. Patients' preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):957–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sarasohn-Kahn J. The Wisdom of Patients: Health Care Meets Online Social Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  7. Kamel Boulos MN, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24(1):2–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Given R. MD Rating Sites: Current State of the Space and Future Prospects. The Health Care Blog. 2008. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  9. Bacon N. Will doctor rating sites improve standards of care? Yes. BMJ. 2009;338:b1030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCartney M. Will doctor rating sites improve the quality of care? No. BMJ. 2009;338:b1033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dolan P. Patients rarely use online ratings to pick physicians. June 23/30, 2008. 2008. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  12. Lagu T, Kaufman EJ, Asch DA, Armstrong K. Content of weblogs written by health professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1642–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Just Looking: Consumer Use of the Internet to Manage Care. California HealthCare Foundation; 2007. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  14. Pho K. How doctors should deal with physician rating sites. 2009. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  15. Donnel R. Rate MDs and other internet physician rating sites. Notes from Dr. RW. 2009. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  16. Solomon S. Doc's RateMDs battle turns ugly. National Review of Medicine. 2007. Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2010].

  17. Schattner A, Bronstein A, Jellin N. Information and shared decision-making are top patients' priorities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Hole AR, Mead N, et al. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients' priorities. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):107–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rothberg MB, Morsi E, Benjamin EM, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK. Choosing the best hospital: the limitations of public quality reporting. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1680–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tara Lagu MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lagu, T., Hannon, N.S., Rothberg, M.B. et al. Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 942–946 (2010).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: