Predicting the Helpfulness of Online Physician Reviews

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nujood Alodadi ◽  
Lina Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Physician Reviews

Impairment Tutorial: Spinal Cord Stimulation and Intraspinal Opioids:Impairment Rating Issues

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Satisfaction Survey ◽  
Start Time ◽  
Medical Evaluation ◽  
Independent Medical Evaluation ◽  
Other Information ◽  
Physician Reviews ◽  
Written Informed Consent

Abstract Evaluators must understand the complex overall process that makes up an independent medical evaluation (IME), whether the purpose of the evaluation is to assess impairment or other care issues. Part 1 of this article provides an overview of the process, and Part 2 [in this issue] reviews the pre-evaluation process in detail. The IME process comprises three phases: pre-evaluation, evaluation, and postevaluation. Pre-evaluation begins when a client requests an IME and provides the physician with medical records and other information. The following steps occur at the time of an evaluation: 1) patient is greeted; arrival time is noted; 2) identity of the examinee is verified; 3) the evaluation process is explained and written informed consent is obtained; 4) questions or inventories are completed; 5) physician reviews radiographs or diagnostic studies; 6) physician records start time and interviews examinee; 7) physician may dictate the history in the presence of the examinee; 8) physician examines examinee with staff member in attendance, documenting negative, physical, and nonphysiologic findings; 9) physician concludes evaluation, records end time, and provides a satisfaction survey to examinee; 10) examinee returns satisfaction survey before departure. Postevaluation work includes preparing the IME report, which is best done immediately after the evaluation. To perfect the IME process, examiners can assess their current approach to IMEs, identify strengths and weaknesses, and consider what can be done to improve efficiency and quality.

Gender Biases in Online Physician Ratings: Female Doctors Evaluated More Harshly by Patients (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Barnett ◽  
Margrét Vilborg Bjarnadóttir ◽  
David Anderson ◽  
Chong Chen
Keyword(s):  
Online Reviews ◽  
Physician Services ◽  
Female Physicians ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Gender Biases ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Physician Reviews ◽  
And Gender ◽  
State Medical Boards

BACKGROUND Prior research has highlighted gender differences in online physician reviews, however, to date no research has linked online ratings with quality of care. OBJECTIVE To compare a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (online ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior), to understand how patients’ perception and evaluation of doctors differ based on the physician’s gender and quality. METHODS We use data from a large online doctor reviews website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implement paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of the separate groups of physicians. We then enrich these findings by utilizing the NRC word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to the various segments: gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating. RESULTS We find significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews for male and female physicians. We find that numerical ratings are lower and the sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male doctors are still associated with positive reviews. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Given the growing impact of online reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different reviews faced by male and female physicians is important for consumers and for platform architects in order to revisit their platform design.

scholarly journals Website Terms of Use May Limit Research about Online Physician Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. e7
Author(s):  
Brian L. Egleston ◽  
John F. McNeill ◽  
Krisha J. Howell
Keyword(s):  
Physician Reviews

Accuracy May Be Casualty in Online Physician Reviews

2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (20) ◽  
pp. 7-25
Author(s):  
Aaron Levin
Keyword(s):  
Physician Reviews

scholarly journals Gender, Soft Skills, and Patient Experience in Online Physician Reviews: A Large-Scale Text Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zackary Dunivin ◽  
Lindsay Zadunayski ◽  
Ujjwal Baskota ◽  
Katie Siek ◽  
Jennifer Mankoff
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Soft Skills ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Female Physicians ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Reviews

BACKGROUND Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. OBJECTIVE This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. METHODS A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). RESULTS Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; <i>P</i>=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. CONCLUSIONS This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients’ choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews.

scholarly journals Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors

10.2196/14134 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. e14134
Author(s):  
Peter Johannes Schulz ◽  
Fabia Rothenfluh
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Ehealth Literacy ◽  
Patient Rating ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Physician Reviews ◽  
Variance Explained

Background Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a device people use actively and passively, although their objective capabilities are insufficient when it comes to judging the medical performance and qualification of physicians. PRWs are an innovation born of the potential of the Internet and boosted very much by the longstanding policy of improving and encouraging patient participation in medical decision-making. A mismatch is feared between patient motivations to participate and their capabilities of doing so well. Awareness of such a mismatch might contribute to some skepticism of patient-written physician reviews on PRWs. Objective We intend to test whether health literacy is able to dampen the effects that a patient-written review of a physician’s performance might have on physician choice. Methods An experiment was conducted within a survey interview. Participants were put into a fictitious decision situation in which they had to choose between two physicians on the basis of their profiles on a PRW. One of the physician profiles contained the experimental stimulus in the form of a friendly and a critical written review. The dependent variable was physician choice. An attitude differential, trust differential, and two measures of health literacy, the newest vital sign as an example of a performance-based measure and eHealth Literacy Scale as an example of a perception-based measure, were tested for roles as intermediary variables. Analysis traced the influence of the review tendency on the dependent variables and a possible moderating effect of health literacy on these influences. Results Reviews of a physician’s competence and medical skill affected participant choice of a physician. High health literacy dampened these effects only in the case of the perception-based measure and only for the negative review. Correspondingly, the effect of the review tendency appeared to be stronger for the positive review. Attitudes and trust only affected physician choice when included as covariants, considerably increasing the variance explained by regression models. Conclusions Findings sustain physician worries that even one negative PRW review can affect patient choice and damage doctors’ reputations. Hopes that health literacy might raise awareness of the poor basis of physician reviews and ratings given by patients have some foundation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document