Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.
Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.1960
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-16
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Macario A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kadry B;Chu LF;Kadry B;Gammas D;Macario A
许多在线医生评价网站向患者提供医生的信息，并允许患者对医生进行评价。考虑到患者可能会利用这些信息来选择医生，了解哪些信息是可用的是很重要的。本研究的目的是：(1)确定用户生成内容的最常访问的医生评分网站，(2)评估这些网站上的可用信息，(3)分析4999个医生的个人在线评分。2010年10月1日，使用谷歌Trends，我们确定了10个最常访问的在线医生评级网站，其中包含用户生成的内容。然后，我们研究了每个网站，以评估可用的信息（例如，委员会认证，实践年限），评级量表的类型（例如，1 - 5,1 - 4,1 - 100），以及用于评估医生的护理维度（例如，向朋友推荐，等候室时间）。我们分析了4999个没有标识符的选定医生评分的数据，以评估医生的在线评分。10个最常访问的用户生成内容网站是HealthGrades.com、Vitals.com、Yelp.com、YP.com、RevolutionHealth.com、RateMD.com、Angieslist.com、Checkbook.org、Kudzu.com和ZocDoc.com。患者在网站上对35个不同的护理维度进行了评分，每个网站的中位数为4.5个问题（平均值4.9，标准差2.8，范围1-9）。根据每个医生评分网站使用的量表，使用100分制（标准差11，中位数76，范围33-100）的网站的平均评分为77分（满分100分），使用5分制（标准差0.98，中位数4，范围1-5）的网站的平均评分为3.84分（77%），使用4分制（标准差0.72，中位数3，范围1-4）的网站的平均评分为3.1分（满分4分）（78%）。100分制评分≥75分的评论占61.5%(246/400)，5分制评分≥4分的评论占57.74%(2078/3599)，4分制评分≥3分的评论占74.0%（740/1000）。患者对医生的单一总体评分与患者对同一医生的其他维度的护理评分相关（Pearson相关性，r = 0.73, P < 0.001）。大多数患者在在线医生评价网站上给予医生好评。评估医生的单一总体评级可能足以评估患者对医生的意见。当患者访问在线医生评分网站时，最优的内容和评分方法值得进一步研究。进行定性分析以比较定量评级将有助于验证用于评估医生的评级工具。
Many online physician-rating sites provide patients with information about physicians and allow patients to rate physicians. Understanding what information is available is important given that patients may use this information to choose a physician. The goals of this study were to (1) determine the most frequently visited physician-rating websites with user-generated content, (2) evaluate the available information on these websites, and (3) analyze 4999 individual online ratings of physicians. On October 1, 2010, using Google Trends we identified the 10 most frequently visited online physician-rating sites with user-generated content. We then studied each site to evaluate the available information (eg, board certification, years in practice), the types of rating scales (eg, 1–5, 1–4, 1–100), and dimensions of care (eg, recommend to a friend, waiting room time) used to rate physicians. We analyzed data from 4999 selected physician ratings without identifiers to assess how physicians are rated online. The 10 most commonly visited websites with user-generated content were HealthGrades.com, Vitals.com, Yelp.com, YP.com, RevolutionHealth.com, RateMD.com, Angieslist.com, Checkbook.org, Kudzu.com, and ZocDoc.com. A total of 35 different dimensions of care were rated by patients in the websites, with a median of 4.5 (mean 4.9, SD 2.8, range 1–9) questions per site. Depending on the scale used for each physician-rating website, the average rating was 77 out of 100 for sites using a 100-point scale (SD 11, median 76, range 33–100), 3.84 out of 5 (77%) for sites using a 5-point scale (SD 0.98, median 4, range 1–5), and 3.1 out of 4 (78%) for sites using a 4-point scale (SD 0.72, median 3, range 1–4). The percentage of reviews rated ≥75 on a 100-point scale was 61.5% (246/400), ≥4 on a 5-point scale was 57.74% (2078/3599), and ≥3 on a 4-point scale was 74.0% (740/1000). The patient’s single overall rating of the physician correlated with the other dimensions of care that were rated by patients for the same physician (Pearson correlation, r = .73, P < .001). Most patients give physicians a favorable rating on online physician-rating sites. A single overall rating to evaluate physicians may be sufficient to assess a patient’s opinion of the physician. The optimal content and rating method that is useful to patients when visiting online physician-rating sites deserves further study. Conducting a qualitative analysis to compare the quantitative ratings would help validate the rating instruments used to evaluate physicians.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.2471/blt.07.050401
发表时间：
2009-04-01
期刊：
Bulletin of the World Health Organization: International Journal of Public Health
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bleich, Sara N;Özaltin, Emre;Murray, Christopher JL
通讯作者：
Murray, Christopher JL
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Lagu, Tara;Hannon, Nicholas S.;Lindenauer, Peter K.
通讯作者：
Lindenauer, Peter K.
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Kinney, WC
通讯作者：
Kinney, WC
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.a1408
发表时间：
2008-09-30
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hopkins Tanne, Janice
通讯作者：
Hopkins Tanne, Janice
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Eisler, T;Svensson, O;Elmstedt, E
通讯作者：
Elmstedt, E