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

Patel, Salma; Cain, Rebecca; Neailey, Kevin; Hooberman, Lucy

doi:10.2196/jmir.9523

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…36 Although there are some caveats in the non-comparability of studies that have been conducted in different settings, using different questionnaires, it seems that the number of people using online feedback is rising rapidly from a very low baseline over time. Subsequent to undertaking this project, a separate study 108 conducted in 2016 has been published examining the prevalence of knowledge and use of online feedback specifically in relation to UK general practice, showing a very low prevalence of usage in relation to feedback specifically about GPs (0.4% prevalence), in combination with a low awareness among the public of GP rating sites (15% awareness).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Powell

Atherton

Williams

et al. 2019

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting The UK. Methods We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Powell

Atherton

Williams

et al. 2019

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of PRWs first requires the public to be aware of them [38]. Recent studies in the United States and Germany suggest that a lack of awareness is no longer a key barrier to PRW usage in these countries [38-41], although a recent study in the England found public awareness of PRWs to still be very low [42]. However, despite the fact that awareness of PRWs is an important factor, it should be noted that although the studies conducted in the United States and Germany found high awareness of the PRWs, the level of PRW usage was still found to be comparable with previous studies [3,43], suggesting that even if awareness of PRWs increases, there are other factors behind the low level of physician ratings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis

McLennan¹

2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings. Objective The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs. Methods In November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician’s quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites. Results Overall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland. Conclusions It appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

show abstract

“…8). Recent studies show that the online reviews of an HCP directly affect the number of patient visits and question their skills on particular specialties [15]- [17]. From the table-III, we get to know that about 66.9% of the HCPs do not have any professional online presence.…”

Section: Fig 8: Online Presence On Patient Review Websitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health Care Professionals in the Digital Landscape in India

S*¹,

Wadhwa²,

Gramle³

2021

IJMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet has become essential to everyone during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown as everything went to virtual. This has made the interactions between Pharmaceutical companies and Health Care Professionals (HCPs) explore digital channels as Medical Representatives (MRs) were not able to efficiently reach the HCPs. This pioneering study was conducted to evaluate the scope of digital channels and uncover insights into the digital behavioral landscape of HCPs to reach them effectively. A proctored, PAN India survey was conducted for health care professionals across diverse specialties and the responses were collected through in-clinic visits, mobile phones (via WhatsApp & SMS) and e-mails. 407 HCPs had actively participated in this survey from across the country. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the outcomes of this research which will help to develop programs directed at the HCPs in India to enhance their knowledge, medicine practice, HCP – patient & HCP – Pharmaceutical company interactions, engagement with the medical community and highlight the areas that they face challenges while accessing information online to better fit in this fast-growing digital landscape of the health sector. This will also cover insights to bridge both physical and digital interactions as ‘Phygital interactions’ that could be followed in the hopeful Post – Covid-19 scenario.

show abstract

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 40 publications

Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis

Health Care Professionals in the Digital Landscape in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About