Survey of the Use of Physician Review Websites in Patients Under Orthopaedic Care (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Joo ◽  
Carolyn Cook ◽  
Ingabire Kayihura ◽  
Jennifer Paul ◽  
Emmanuel Menga ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Physician-rating websites (PRWs) are rising in popularity as the healthcare sector focuses more on patient-centered value-based care delivery. Recent studies have reported that the vast majority of orthopaedic surgeons across subspecialties already have at least one rating or review on at least one PRW. However, there are few studies identifying patient-facing factors related to the knowledge and use of PRWs and the level of influence PRWs may have on patient decision-making. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are: 1) to determine the prevalence of PRW use by patients seeking orthopaedic care, 2) to identify the influence PRWs have on patient decision-making, and 3) to identify factors associated with knowledge and use of PRWs. METHODS Survey administration was performed at three outpatient orthopaedic multi-specialty. Patients were asked about demographic characteristics including age, sex, occupation, and education, as well as their familiarity with PRWs, use of PRWs, and how PRWs have influenced their decision to see their surgeon. RESULTS A total of 350 patients completed the survey. The majority were women (59%) and Caucasian (77%), and the mean age of the population was 58 years old (range 15-91). 155 patients (44%) reported being somewhat (31%) or very (13%) familiar with PRWs, and 195 patients (56%) reported no familiarity with PRWs. Patients most familiar with PRWs were between 45-64 years old (p = 0.02), women (p < 0.01), had graduate/professional degrees (p < 0.01), and seen by adult reconstruction surgeons (p = 0.02). Seventy-two percent of patients utilizing PRWs reported that PRWs had an impact on their decision to see their chosen provider, with 93% noting ratings and reviews as the most valuable information. CONCLUSIONS Many patients in this study were not familiar with PRWs and did not utilize PRWs prior to their visit. However, most patients who did consult PRWs reported that the ratings and reviews did have an impact in their decision to choose their orthopaedic specialist. As PRW use increases, factors that influence patient decision-making are important to understand for surgeons and administrators.

2020 ◽  
Vol 87 ◽  
pp. 103107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Holden ◽  
Carly N. Daley ◽  
Robin S. Mickelson ◽  
Davide Bolchini ◽  
Tammy Toscos ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas O. Stewart ◽  
Joseph P. DeMarco

Rheumatology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Liddle ◽  
Jane C. Richardson ◽  
Christian D. Mallen ◽  
Samantha L. Hider ◽  
Priyanka Chandratre ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szilvia Zörgő ◽  
Gjalt - Jorn Ygram Peters ◽  
Csajbók-Veres Krisztina ◽  
Anna Jeney ◽  
Andrew Ruis

Background: Patient decision-making concerning therapy choice has been thoroughly investigated in the Push/Pull framework: factors pushing the patient away from biomedicine and those pulling them towards Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). Others have examined lay etiology as a potential factor in CAM use.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients employing only biomedicine and those using CAM. The coded and segmented data was quantified and modelled using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to explore what effects push/pull factors and etiology had on the decision-making processes.Results: There was a marked difference between our two subsamples concerning push factors: although both groups exhibited similar scaled relative code frequencies, the CAM network models were more interconnected, indicating that CAM users expressed dissatisfaction with a wider array of phenomena. Among pull factors, a preference for natural therapies accounted for differences between groups but did not retain a strong connection to rejecting conventional treatments. Etiology, particularly adherence to vitalism, was also a critical factor in both choice of therapy and rejection of biomedical treatments.Conclusions: Push factors had a crucial influence on decision-making, not as individual entities, but as a constellation of experienced phenomena. Belief in vitalism affects the patient’s explanatory model of illness, changing the interpretation of other etiological factors and illness itself. Scrutinizing individual push/pull factors or etiology does not explain therapeutic choices; it is from their interplay that decisions arise. Our unified, qualitative-and-quantitative methodological approach offers novel insight into decision-making by displaying connections among codes within patient narratives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document