Online Reviews of Specialized Drug Treatment Facilities—Identifying Potential Drivers of High and Low Patient Satisfaction

Agarwal, Anish K.; Wong, Vivien; Pelullo, Arthur; Guntuku, Sharath Chandra; Polsky, Daniel; Asch, David A.; Muruako, Jonathan; Merchant, Raina M.

doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05548-9

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous analyses have found that ratings of health care facilities generally stabilized with greater numbers of reviews and that online ratings corresponded more closely to CMS survey ratings with greater numbers of reviews. 8 , 10 To maximize facility inclusion while acknowledging these previous findings, we chose to limit facilities to those with at least 3 reviews, which was consistent with approaches used in previous work. 7 , 8 For facilities with at least 3 reviews between 2015 and 2019, all reviews within that 5-year period were included in subsequent analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crowdsourced online review sites can provide insight into patient experiences with local health care facilities and practitioners and cover a broader range of life-prolonging medical services compared with patient surveys conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 The CMS survey provides patients with the opportunity to rate hospitals, home health care services, and dialysis facilities but excludes other services providing life-prolonging care. 14 The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) identified 10 essential health benefits extending beyond those services covered by CMS patient surveys and including, for instance, ambulatory services and mental health and substance use disorder services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association Between Crowdsourced Health Care Facility Ratings and Mortality in US Counties

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Mortality across US counties varies considerably, from 252 to 1847 deaths per 100 000 people in 2018. Although patient satisfaction with health care is associated with patientand facility-level health outcomes, the association between health care satisfaction and communitylevel health outcomes is not known. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between online ratings of health care facilities and mortality across US counties and to identify language specific to 1-star (lowest rating) and 5-star (highest rating) reviews in counties with high vs low mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective population-based cross-sectional studyexamined reviews and ratings of 95 120 essential health care facilities across 1301 US counties.Counties that had at least 1 essential health care facility with reviews available on Yelp, an online review platform, were included. Essential health care was defined according to the 10 essential health benefits covered by Affordable Care Act insurance plans.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Crowdsourced Health Care Facility Ratings and Mortality in US Counties

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2][3][4] The medical and dental literature has indicated that reviews from online websites can provide meaningful information about patient experience and satisfaction. [5][6][7][8] For example, one study found that Yelp ratings were highly correlated with hospital ratings from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, 9 and another offered insights into patient experiences that were not evaluated in the HCAHPS survey. 10 Other studies have used data from RateMDs, HealthGrades, Vitals, and other review websites to examine a range of health care issues from the patient perspective, including physician quality, 11 patientprovider relationship, 12 and factors associated with high surgeon ratings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient experiences at dental school clinics: A comparative analysis of online reviews

Gupta

Alraqiq

2021

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose/objectives: Online review sites have become popular platforms for health care consumers to rate their experiences. An analysis of online reviews can help dental school clinics learn from patient feedback that is not accessible through formal patient surveys. This study's objectives were to characterize patient-generated reviews posted on the Yelp and Google review sites and assess any associations between dental schools' ratings and their respective characteristics. Methods:This cross-sectional study analyzed patient-generated Yelp and Google reviews regarding their experiences at 65 dental school clinics between June and August 2019. Quantitative analysis of selected dental school characteristics and patient ratings was performed using analysis of variance, with effect size measured by the omega-squared (ω 2 ) statistic. Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05. Qualitative analysis of review content was conducted using NVivo software.Results: Among 65 dental schools in the Unite States, 63 schools (96.9%) had reviews available on Google, and 55 schools (84.6%) had reviews available on Yelp. A total of 4702 patient reviews were included in the analysis (2516 [53.5%] from Google [mean rating = 3.6 ± 0.6 stars] and 2186 [46.5%] from Yelp [mean rating = 3.1 ± 0.9 stars). A school location in the South/Midwest was significantly associated with a higher Yelp rating compared with a school location in the Northeast/West (ω 2 = 0.140, 95% confidence interval = 0.002-0.310, p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis found that review content was predominantly negative; while subthemes in care delivery generated positive responses to care quality, those regarding the pre-care and post-care categories garnered negative responses. This finding was particularly true for comments addressing staff helpfulness, billing and payment, and clinic functioning.Conclusions: This study's findings indicated that dental programs' online reviews were predominantly negative and covered categories that were not addressed in existing satisfaction surveys.

show abstract

“…It is in this setting that Agarwal and colleagues conducted an analysis of 7635 online ratings from Yelp and Google Reviews from July 2010 to August 2018 for the 485 of Pennsylvania's 536 SDTFs that were listed in the 2016 National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities and had online reviews on either platform. 10 The objectives of the study were to identify themes present within online ratings associated with positive and negative reviews and to compare these with elements measured by existing facility surveys. Using machine learning techniques for topic modelling, they identified themes associated with positive (5-star) and negative (1 For the second objective, the authors tested for correlation between the themes identified from online reviews and facility service categories from the 2017 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rate Your Addiction Treatment Facility: Exploring the Quality Chasm Online

Chen

Fiellin

2020

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online Reviews of Specialized Drug Treatment Facilities—Identifying Potential Drivers of High and Low Patient Satisfaction

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Association Between Crowdsourced Health Care Facility Ratings and Mortality in US Counties

Association Between Crowdsourced Health Care Facility Ratings and Mortality in US Counties

Patient experiences at dental school clinics: A comparative analysis of online reviews

Rate Your Addiction Treatment Facility: Exploring the Quality Chasm Online

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About