Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities

Abstract

BackgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants’ attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician.MethodsA mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician.ResultsA total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders’ gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders’ age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources.ConclusionsWhereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.

Public Awareness, Usage, and Predictors for the Use of Doctor Rating Websites: Cross-Sectional Study in England

“…But there could also be a sampling effect, as the aforementioned studies were all conducted using online panel sampling. However, a recent study in Germany that used a cross-sectional random sample survey found awareness at 72.5% [ 21 ]…”

“…Similarly, Terlutter et al [ 32 ] discovered in Germany (in 2012) that 26% of the population had used a doctor-rating website before, although it was not clear for which purpose. More recently, in 2017, researchers found usage of doctor-rating websites in Germany at 43.6% [ 21 ] In Austria, researchers conducted an experimental study based on a convenient sample and found that 47% of respondents had used a doctor-rating website, and 6% had used it to leave feedback [ 46 ]. The difference in results may be due to regional differences in the diffusion of doctor-rating websites and the adoption of the internet for seeking health information.…”

“…The difference in results may be due to regional differences in the diffusion of doctor-rating websites and the adoption of the internet for seeking health information. However, there may also be a sampling effect, because many of the studies outside of the UK (with the exception of the one conducted by Burkle and Keegan [ 37 ] and McLennan et al [ 21 ]) used an online panel as their sample population. The use of online sampling may have affected results, because those who are online, and had used the internet to search for health information, may be more likely to be aware of and use doctor-rating websites than those that had not, as results from this present study suggest.…”

“…There has also been a steady increase in research into OPF websites, with studies conducted in the UK [9,11,13,14,16--24], Germany [ 16 - 21 ], Netherlands [ 22 ], Australia [ 23 ] and other countries [ 24 , 25 ] all contributing to the OPF evidence basis. Some evidence can be found to suggest that there is an association between online ratings and the quality of care [ 12 , 13 , 26 - 28 ], but the results are often conflicting [ 29 ].…”

An Empirical Examination of Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Physician Rating Websites

“…In line with the growing adoption of social media and online review platforms in various sectors, patients in different countries such as United States [25,27], Germany [11,32], and China [21] use physician rating websites (PRWs) to review physicians and write comments about them. The reviews shared in this way can help other patients make more informed and judicious decisions on which doctors to visit.…”