Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study
- PMID: 23985220
- PMCID: PMC3758064
- DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2702
Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study
Abstract
Background: Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.
Objective: To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites.
Methods: This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample.
Results: In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models.
Conclusions: Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.
Keywords: patient satisfaction; physician choice making; physician-rating website; public reporting.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Similar articles
-
Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities.J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 9;19(11):e387. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7581. J Med Internet Res. 2017. PMID: 29122739 Free PMC article.
-
An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 6;15(8):e157. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2655. J Med Internet Res. 2013. PMID: 23919987 Free PMC article.
-
Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites.J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 31;16(3):e97. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3145. J Med Internet Res. 2014. PMID: 24686918 Free PMC article.
-
Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites.J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 25;19(8):e299. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6599. J Med Internet Res. 2017. PMID: 28842391 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Popularity of internet physician rating sites and their apparent influence on patients' choices of physicians.BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 26;15:416. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1099-2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015. PMID: 26410383 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Psoriasis care in Germany: do patients who receive better care travel longer?Res Health Serv Reg. 2022 Aug 30;1(1):8. doi: 10.1007/s43999-022-00008-0. Res Health Serv Reg. 2022. PMID: 39177726 Free PMC article.
-
The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments.Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Aug;25(6):1071-1085. doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01650-2. Epub 2023 Dec 15. Eur J Health Econ. 2024. PMID: 38102524 Free PMC article.
-
The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR Form Res. 2023 May 4;7:e39857. doi: 10.2196/39857. JMIR Form Res. 2023. PMID: 37140959 Free PMC article.
-
Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial.Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Mar;25(2):293-305. doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01587-6. Epub 2023 Apr 13. Eur J Health Econ. 2024. PMID: 37052802 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Influence of Paid Memberships on Physician Rating Websites With the Example of the German Portal Jameda: Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.J Med Internet Res. 2023 Apr 4;25:e39259. doi: 10.2196/39259. J Med Internet Res. 2023. PMID: 37014690 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Merchant RM, Yang L, Becker LB, Berg RA, Nadkarni V, Nichol G, Carr BG, Mitra N, Bradley SM, Abella BS, Groeneveld PW, American Heart Association Get With the Guideline-Resuscitation Investigators Variability in case-mix adjusted in-hospital cardiac arrest rates. Med Care. 2012 Feb;50(2):124–30. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822d5d17. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22249921 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Laschet H. ÄrzteZeitung. 2013. Jan 21, [2013-08-19]. GBA knöpft sich fünf Problem-Indikation vor http://www.aerztezeitung.de/politik_gesellschaft/versorgungsforschung/ar....
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous