Volltext-Downloads (blau) und Frontdoor-Views (grau)
(Leider keine statistischen Daten vom 26.05. – 18.06.2018)
  • search hit 9 of 31
Back to Result List

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

  • Background: Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. Objective: To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. Methods: Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? Results: Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. Conclusions: Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar

Statistics

frontdoor_oas
Metadaten
Author:Martin Emmert, Uwe SanderORCiDGND, Frank Pisch
URN:urn:nbn:de:bsz:960-opus4-9405
DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2360
Pubmed Id:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=23372115
Parent Title (English):Journal of Medical Internet Research
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Year of Completion:2013
Release Date:2016/08/11
Tag:Physician rating websites; patient narratives; public reporting; systematic review; transparency
Volume:15
Issue:2
Institutes:Fakultät III - Medien, Information und Design
DDC classes:610 Medizin, Gesundheit
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - Namensnennung 2.0