Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review.
Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.2360
复制
发表时间：
2013-02-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Pisch F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Emmert M;Sander U;Pisch F
医生评级网站目前越来越受欢迎，因为它们增加了医疗保健系统的透明度。然而，对这些门户网站的特点和内容的研究仍然有限。识别并综合同行评审期刊中关于医生评级网站经常讨论的问题的已发表证据。在7个数据库（Medline（通过PubMed）、科克伦图书馆、Business Source Complete、ABI/Inform Complete、PsycInfo、Scopus和ISI Web of Knowledge）中检索了同行评审的英语和德语文献，没有任何时间限制。此外，筛选了纳入研究的参考文献列表，以确保完整性。解决了以下八个之前定义的问题：1）接受评级的医生比例是多少？2)医生评分网站的平均评分是多少？3)被评定的医生之间是否存在与社会经济地位有关的差异？4)评级更有可能是正面的还是负面的？5)患者叙述有什么意义？6)医生应该如何处理医生评级网站？7)医生评分网站有哪些主要缺点？8)对于进一步改进医生评级网站，可以提出什么建议？在同行评审期刊上发表的24篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。大多数研究由美国（n=13）和德国（n=8）研究人员发表;然而，重点差异很大。目前医生评级网站的使用率仍然很低，但正在增加。国际数据显示，每6名医生中就有1名被评为医生，医生评级网站上约90%的评级是正面的。虽然这常常是一个令人关切的问题，但我们找不到任何“抨击医生”的证据。医生不应该忽视这些网站，而是要监控可用的信息，并将其用于内部和外部目的。一些缺点限制了医生评级网站上公布的结果的意义，提出了一些建议，以解决这些限制。虽然出版物的数量仍然很低，但医生评级网站在研究中越来越受到关注。但目前我国的医生评分网站还比较缺乏。美国和德国都是如此。有必要进一步研究，以提高网站的质量，特别是从患者的角度。
Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Kadry B;Chu LF;Kadry B;Gammas D;Macario A
通讯作者：
Macario A
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：
1.1
作者：
Emmert, M.;Gemza, R.;Sohn, S.
通讯作者：
Sohn, S.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Mukamel, DB;Mushlin, AI
通讯作者：
Mushlin, AI
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Alemi, Farrokh;Torii, Manabu;Aron, David C
通讯作者：
Aron, David C