Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis
Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians. We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a spec...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical Internet research 2019-07, Vol.21 (7), p.e12436-e12436 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e12436 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e12436 |
| container_title | Journal of medical Internet research |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Pike, C William Zillioux, Jacqueline Rapp, David |
| description | Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2196/12436 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6632102</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A769355637</galeid><sourcerecordid>A769355637</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-dacb3285af75c66d346b07cfcee0204cc8158a67c6dc025706b3e59a566d55503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkltL7DAQx4Mo3r-CFOTA8WE1lyZpfTiwLN5AFLw8h2w6rZE2WZN20W9v1vseJIEMmd_8J5kZhHYJPqSkFEeE5kysoE2Ss2JUFJKs_rA30FaMjxhTnJdkHW0wQoUsC7qJ8mvXWgfZje6ta2Lm6-w--NY3NvbxOJv4bhbgAVy0c8jGTrcv0cYdtFbrNsLux7mN7k9P7ibno8vrs4vJ-HJk8pL2o0qbKaMF17XkRoiK5WKKpakNwOIlxhSEF1pIIyqDKZdYTBnwUvPEcs4x20b_3nVnw7SDyoDrg27VLNhOhxfltVXLHmcfVOPnSghGCaZJ4O-HQPBPA8RedTYaaFvtwA9RUcqJKNNeoPv_oY9-COnDieKESlHQknxTjW5BWVf7lNcsRNVYipJxLphM1OEvVFoVdNZ4B7VN90sBB0sBienhuW_0EKO6uL1aZv-8syb4GAPUX_UgWC1GQb2NQuL2fhbvi_rsPXsFqHOqNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2512768291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Pike, C William ; Zillioux, Jacqueline ; Rapp, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Pike, C William ; Zillioux, Jacqueline ; Rapp, David</creatorcontrib><description>Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.
In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1438-8871</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1439-4456</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-8871</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2196/12436</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31267982</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Canada: Journal of Medical Internet Research</publisher><subject>Age ; Analysis ; Comments ; Correlation analysis ; Employee performance ; Female ; Health care industry ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Internet ; Male ; Medical research ; Medical societies ; Medicine, Experimental ; Original Paper ; Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data ; Patients ; Physicians ; Ratings & rankings ; Reputation management ; Retrieval ; Urologists - organization & administration ; Urology ; Variables ; Websites</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical Internet research, 2019-07, Vol.21 (7), p.e12436-e12436</ispartof><rights>C William Pike, Jacqueline Zillioux, David Rapp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.07.2019.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Journal of Medical Internet Research</rights><rights>2019. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>C William Pike, Jacqueline Zillioux, David Rapp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.07.2019. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-dacb3285af75c66d346b07cfcee0204cc8158a67c6dc025706b3e59a566d55503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-dacb3285af75c66d346b07cfcee0204cc8158a67c6dc025706b3e59a566d55503</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8729-5301 ; 0000-0002-2166-1559 ; 0000-0002-9170-3056</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,12825,27901,27902,30976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31267982$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pike, C William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zillioux, Jacqueline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, David</creatorcontrib><title>Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis</title><title>Journal of medical Internet research</title><addtitle>J Med Internet Res</addtitle><description>Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.
In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Comments</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Employee performance</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical societies</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Reputation management</subject><subject>Retrieval</subject><subject>Urologists - organization & administration</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Variables</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>1438-8871</issn><issn>1439-4456</issn><issn>1438-8871</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkltL7DAQx4Mo3r-CFOTA8WE1lyZpfTiwLN5AFLw8h2w6rZE2WZN20W9v1vseJIEMmd_8J5kZhHYJPqSkFEeE5kysoE2Ss2JUFJKs_rA30FaMjxhTnJdkHW0wQoUsC7qJ8mvXWgfZje6ta2Lm6-w--NY3NvbxOJv4bhbgAVy0c8jGTrcv0cYdtFbrNsLux7mN7k9P7ibno8vrs4vJ-HJk8pL2o0qbKaMF17XkRoiK5WKKpakNwOIlxhSEF1pIIyqDKZdYTBnwUvPEcs4x20b_3nVnw7SDyoDrg27VLNhOhxfltVXLHmcfVOPnSghGCaZJ4O-HQPBPA8RedTYaaFvtwA9RUcqJKNNeoPv_oY9-COnDieKESlHQknxTjW5BWVf7lNcsRNVYipJxLphM1OEvVFoVdNZ4B7VN90sBB0sBienhuW_0EKO6uL1aZv-8syb4GAPUX_UgWC1GQb2NQuL2fhbvi_rsPXsFqHOqNw</recordid><startdate>20190702</startdate><enddate>20190702</enddate><creator>Pike, C William</creator><creator>Zillioux, Jacqueline</creator><creator>Rapp, David</creator><general>Journal of Medical Internet Research</general><general>Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor</general><general>JMIR Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CNYFK</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1O</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8729-5301</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-1559</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9170-3056</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190702</creationdate><title>Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis</title><author>Pike, C William ; Zillioux, Jacqueline ; Rapp, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-dacb3285af75c66d346b07cfcee0204cc8158a67c6dc025706b3e59a566d55503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Comments</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Employee performance</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical societies</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Reputation management</topic><topic>Retrieval</topic><topic>Urologists - organization & administration</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Variables</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pike, C William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zillioux, Jacqueline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Library Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical Internet research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pike, C William</au><au>Zillioux, Jacqueline</au><au>Rapp, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical Internet research</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Internet Res</addtitle><date>2019-07-02</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e12436</spage><epage>e12436</epage><pages>e12436-e12436</pages><issn>1438-8871</issn><issn>1439-4456</issn><eissn>1438-8871</eissn><abstract>Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.
In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.</abstract><cop>Canada</cop><pub>Journal of Medical Internet Research</pub><pmid>31267982</pmid><doi>10.2196/12436</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8729-5301</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-1559</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9170-3056</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1438-8871 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical Internet research, 2019-07, Vol.21 (7), p.e12436-e12436 |
| issn | 1438-8871 1439-4456 1438-8871 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6632102 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access |
| subjects | Age Analysis Comments Correlation analysis Employee performance Female Health care industry Hospitals Humans Internet Male Medical research Medical societies Medicine, Experimental Original Paper Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data Patients Physicians Ratings & rankings Reputation management Retrieval Urologists - organization & administration Urology Variables Websites |
| title | Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T06%3A14%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Online%20Ratings%20of%20Urologists:%20Comprehensive%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20Internet%20research&rft.au=Pike,%20C%20William&rft.date=2019-07-02&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e12436&rft.epage=e12436&rft.pages=e12436-e12436&rft.issn=1438-8871&rft.eissn=1438-8871&rft_id=info:doi/10.2196/12436&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA769355637%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2512768291&rft_id=info:pmid/31267982&rft_galeid=A769355637&rfr_iscdi=true |