Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Availability and Nature of Physician Information on the Internet

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although patients are commonly using the Internet to find healthcare information, the amount of personal and professional physician information and patient-generated ratings freely accessible online is unknown.

Objective

To characterize the nature of online professional and personal information available to the average patient searching for physician information through a standardized web search.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We studied 250 randomly selected internal medicine physicians registered with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine in 2008. For each physician, standardized searches via the Google search engine were performed using a sequential search strategy. The top 20 search results were analyzed, and websites that referred to the study subject were recorded and categorized. Physician rating sites were further investigated to determine the number of patient-entered reviews.

Main Measures

Number and content of websites attributable to specific physicians.

Key Results

Websites containing personal or professional information were identified for 93.6% of physicians. Among those with any web sites identified, 92.8% had professional information and 32.4% had personal information available online. Female physicians were more likely to have professional information available on the Internet than male physicians (97.5% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.03), but had similar rates of available personal information (32.5% vs. 32.5%, p = ns). Among personal sites, the most common categories included social networking sites such as Facebook (10.8% of physicians), hobbies (10.0%), charitable or political donations (9.6%), and family information (8.8%). Physician rating sites were identified for 86.4% of providers, but only three physicians had more than five reviews on any given rating site.

Conclusions

Personal and professional physician information is widely available on the Internet, and often not under direct control of the individual physician. The availability of such information has implications for physician–patient relationships and suggests that physicians should monitor their online information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Henzinger M. Search technologies for the Internet. Science. 2007;317:468–471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Madden M. Internet Penetration and Impact. Pew Internet & American Life Project 2006.

  3. Schwartz KL, Roe T, Northrup J, Meza J, Seifeldin R, Neale AV. Family medicine patients' use of the Internet for health information: a MetroNet study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19:39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fox S, Jones S. Generations Online in 2009. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009. Accessed at http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx on 23 May 2010.

  5. Fox S. The engaged e-patient population. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2008. Accessed, at http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Engaged-Epatient-Population.aspx on 1 May 2010.

  6. Fox S, Purcell K. Chronic disease and the Internet. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010. Accessed at http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Chronic-Disease.aspx on 1 May 2010.

  7. Madden M, Fox S. Finding answers online in sickness and in health. Pew Internet & american life project 5/2/2006. Accessed at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/220/finding-answers-online-in-sickness-and-in-health on 23 May 2010.

  8. Steinberg P, Wason S, Stern J, Deters L, Kowal B. Youtube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010;75(3):619–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician–patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Walters B, Barnard D, Paris S. "Patient portals" and "E-Visits". J Ambul Care Manage. 2006;29:222–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. MD Junction.com. People Helping People. 2009. Accessed at http://www.mdjunction.com on 23 May 2010.

  12. Bates DW, Gawande AA. The impact of the Internet on quality measurement. Health aff (Project Hope). 2000;19:104–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fanjiang G, von Glahn T, Chang H, Rogers WH, Safran DG. Providing patients web-based data to inform physician choice: if you build it, will they come? J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1463–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gorrindo T, Groves JE. Web searching for information about physicians. JAMA. 2008;300:213–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinnott JT, Joseph JP. Web searches about physicians. JAMA. 2008;300:2249–2250. author reply 2250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beach MC, Roter D, Rubin H, Frankel R, Levinson W, Ford DE. Is physician self-disclosure related to patient evaluation of office visits? J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:905–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. US Census Bureau, Small area income and poverty links. 2008. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2008.html on 23 May 2010.

  18. Comscore. U.S. Search Engine Rankings February, 2009. Accessed at http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/3/US_Search_Engine_Ranking/(language)/eng-US on 23 May 2010.

  19. iProspect Search Engine User Behavior Study. 2006. Accessed at http://www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/WhitePaper_2006_SearchEngineUserBehavior.pdf on 23 May 2010.

  20. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. State Health Facts - Massachusetts. 2008. Accessed at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=433&cat=8&rgn=23 on 23 May 2010.

  21. Herman J. Annual Report of the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Medicine. 2008. Accessed at http://www.massmedboard.org/public/pdf/annual_report_2008_final.pdf on 23 May 2010.

  22. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners. Quality Reports - Technical Appendix. 2009. Accessed at http://www.mhqp.org/quality/pes/pesTechApp.asp?nav=031638 on 23 May 2010.

  23. Pacific Business Group on Health. Health Care Performance Measurement and Reporting. 2009. Accessed at http://www.pbgh.org/programs/quality_measurement.asp on 23 May 2010.

  24. Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, et al. The intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:954–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce E. Landon MD, MBA, MSc.

Additional information

Drs. Mostaghimi and Crotty contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mostaghimi, A., Crotty, B.H. & Landon, B.E. The Availability and Nature of Physician Information on the Internet. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 1152–1156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1425-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1425-7

Key Words

Navigation