Negative reviews online: an exploratory analysis of patient complaints about dental services in Western Australia

Abstract

Objective Rates of online reviews are continually increasing. Coinciding with this, is the beneficial abundance of subjective information that is now available to patients. Such information can be persuasive in selecting a healthcare provider. This analysis of one‐and‐two‐star Google reviews received by dental practices within the Perth metropolitan region aims to identify common themes within dental practice complaints. Methods This mixed‐methods study was conducted by gathering reviews from the ‘Google review’ feature, which have been published by users between 2013 and 2020. These data were then coded into recognised themes, and crucial quotes were selected and de‐identified creating a narrative about the themes present which formed the qualitative component of this research. Results A total of 413 negative reviews were included in this study. From these, 1071 specific complaints were identified. Major themes identified included treatment issues, staffing, communication and professionalism, finance, and premise. Spread across these five themes were an additional thirty‐eight subthemes. Overall, treatment was a primary concern for patients, making up 37.1% of the results. Within the subthemes ‘treatment dissatisfaction (unspecified)’ was also high, at 23.1%. Conclusion This study identified the most common complaints received by dental clinics on Google review within the Perth metropolitan area. Further investigation is required to provide supplementary data regarding factors that may influence complaint rates and types, such as the socio‐economic status of areas and geographical factors such as distance from the Perth metropolitan.

The 'five star' fallacy: an analysis of online reviews and testimonials of dental practices in Northern England

“…10 Despite the concomitant rise of online engagement and surge in online reviews and testimonials, a recent systematic review found that utilisation of healthcare review websites remains relatively low. 23,25 Our results echo these findings as although over 80% (n = 386) of practices were listed on the NHS website, only 40.9% (n = 158) of these contained at least one review. Social media platforms increasingly allow users to publish their reviews alongside personal anecdotes, often used to demonstrate polarised viewpoints, which may influence other users' engagement with a product or service; 87.2% (n = 272) of practice Facebook pages contained at least one review.…”

“…Google plays a key role in how patients and the public seek healthcare-related information. 23 In 2021, 97% of users used Google to find local businesses via their 'search' function and 86% via their 'maps' function, hence it would not be wrong to assume that patients are most likely using similar methods to find potential dental providers. 2 We found that the number of practices with their own dedicated practice website (n = 401; 84.2%) was lower than the near ubiquitous presence of dental practices with a Google listing (n = 468; 98.3%).…”

“…Social media platforms increasingly allow users to publish their reviews alongside personal anecdotes, often used to demonstrate polarised viewpoints, which may influence other users' engagement with a product or service; 87.2% (n = 272) of practice Facebook pages contained at least one review. 23,26 In addition to writing an anecdotal tale of their dental experience, the NHS website, Facebook and Google all utilise a 'five-star' rating system, providing a quick method of assessing the perception of users' overall experience. 23 Each star system accumulates and aggregates ratings over a period of time -on the Google review platform, the date of review has little effect if viewed purely quantitatively, 23,27 whereas on the NHS website, reviews posted more than two years ago are automatically deleted.…”

“…23,26 In addition to writing an anecdotal tale of their dental experience, the NHS website, Facebook and Google all utilise a 'five-star' rating system, providing a quick method of assessing the perception of users' overall experience. 23 Each star system accumulates and aggregates ratings over a period of time -on the Google review platform, the date of review has little effect if viewed purely quantitatively, 23,27 whereas on the NHS website, reviews posted more than two years ago are automatically deleted. This may be one of the key reasons as to why the NHS website has the lowest number of reviews placed by patients.…”

“…eWOM is a powerful tool and as it is often littered with bias, may not be a true representation of patient experience. 23 This is just as true on practice websites, where practices have autonomy over the content of their webpages and are therefore also susceptible to manipulation. Despite practice websites being the least utilised for reviews (n = 79; 19.7%), they actually contained the highest mean score of 4.94 out of 5 when compared to the mean scores seen on the NHS website (4.69), Facebook (4.72) and Google (4.54).…”