Chronic Pain Practices: An Evaluation of Positive and Negative Online Patient Reviews

Abstract

Background: The role of patient satisfaction continues to play an important role in health care quality measures. The use of online review platforms has been adopted by patients to share their perceptions about the quality of care provided by physicians. Chronic pain practice has unique challenges regarding patient satisfaction. Objectives: The main goal of this study is to identify the themes associated with positive and negative reviews of chronic pain physicians at publicly available online review platforms. Study Design: A retrospective study design. Setting: We evaluated publicly available online patient-generated reviews of chronic pain physicians from Yelp and Healthgrades. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated patient-generated reviews of chronic pain physicians from 2 online platforms—Yelp and Healthgrades—between the September 1, 2018 through November 1, 2018. Ninety chronic pain physicians were randomly selected from 4 diverse geographic cities in the United States: New York (NY), Houston (TX), Chicago (IL), and Seattle (WA). Primary outcome was defined as high and low rating scores. Secondary outcome was the proportion of positive and negative attributes (patient, physician, procedure, and administrative attributes) that was associated with high and low rating scores. Results: A total of 1,627 reviews were extracted from 90 physicians evaluated at Yelp and Healthgrades. Of this total review, 1,296 (79.7%) were high scoring and (331) 20.3% were low scoring. Chronic pain providers who were high scoring had positive reviews that consisted of physician attributes (63.5%), administrative attributes (23.4%), and patient attributes (12.2%). The highest proportion of the first 3 physician attributes associated with high ratings were knowledgeable, helpful, and caring. Chronic pain providers who were low scoring had negative reviews that consisted of physician attributes (41.4%), administrative attributes (52.1%), and procedure attributes (5.2%). The highest proportion of the first 3 physician attributes associated with low ratings were disrespectful, unhelpful, and uncaring. Limitations: First, this study looks at reviews of 4 large cities, thus we may have excluded patient populations with substantially different preferences as health care consumers. Second, it is impossible to confirm the validity of individual reviewers’ interactions with the pain management specialist who provided care or validate the identity of the reviewers. Third, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to tell if the rater is a patient or someone posing as a patient, such as an unhappy employee or a business competitor. Conclusions: Online platforms provide a medium that facilitates immediate communication among patients. These platforms may provide timely data for chronic pain physicians to gain more insight into the quality of care perceived by patients, thereby aiding providers to improve on ways to optimize patient-care experiences and encounters. Key words: Chronic pain practice, online review, patient review, patient satisfaction

Questioning the Yelp Effect: Mixed Methods Analysis of Web-Based Reviews of Urgent Cares

“…In recent years, some authors have suggested the presence of an effect that is similar to the Yelp effect in the context of opioid prescription [ 29 , 30 ]. However, similar to our findings, other studies have shown that these negative reviews are primarily comments on physicians’ attributes or administrative attributes [ 31 ].…”

Using Sentiment Analysis to Understand What Patients Are Saying About Hand Surgeons Online

“…They found that, even when focusing on a cohort of physicians focused on chronic pain management, the largest contributing characteristics of negative reviews were mainly administrative. 19 However, this discrepancy is likely because they were only evaluating 331 negative reviews since their analysis was conducted manually by 2 human raters. This reinforces the strength in this study’s methods as it is able to produce results through an unbiased approach and analyze significantly more reviews.…”

Analysis of Online Urologist Ratings: Are Rating Differences Associated With Subspecialty?

“…Finally, this subspecialty also includes focus on diseases characterized by chronic and often refractory pain (eg, interstitial cystitis, chronic pelvic pain syndrome) that could be associated with lower ratings related to patient frustration. Indeed, in their analysis of PRW for chronic pain medicine physicians, Orhurhu and colleagues comment that the 20% rate of negative reviews observed is generally higher than previous analyses of other medical specialties (22). Despite this background, we found no statistically significant differences in ratings when comparing female pelvic medicine subspecialty with the remaining subspecialties.…”