Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-06-2015 | Research article

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites

Authors: Martin Emmert, Thomas Adelhardt, Uwe Sander, Veit Wambach, Jörg Lindenthal

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Even though physician rating websites (PRWs) have been gaining in importance in both practice and research, little evidence is available on the association of patients’ online ratings with the quality of care of physicians. It thus remains unclear whether patients should rely on these ratings when selecting a physician. The objective of this study was to measure the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures for 65 physician practices from the German Integrated Health Care Network “Quality and Efficiency” (QuE).

Methods

Online reviews from two German PRWs were included which covered a three-year period (2011 to 2013) and included 1179 and 991 ratings, respectively. Information for 65 QuE practices was obtained for the year 2012 and included 21 measures related to structural information (N = 6), process quality (N = 10), intermediate outcomes (N = 2), patient satisfaction (N = 1), and costs (N = 2). The Spearman rank coefficient of correlation was applied to measure the association between ratings and practice-related information.

Results

Patient satisfaction results from offline surveys and the patients per doctor ratio in a practice were shown to be significantly associated with online ratings on both PRWs. For one PRW, additional significant associations could be shown between online ratings and cost-related measures for medication, preventative examinations, and one diabetes type 2-related intermediate outcome measure. There again, results from the second PRW showed significant associations with the age of the physicians and the number of patients per practice, four process-related quality measures for diabetes type 2 and asthma, and one cost-related measure for medication.

Conclusions

Several significant associations were found which varied between the PRWs. Patients interested in the satisfaction of other patients with a physician might select a physician on the basis of online ratings. Even though our results indicate associations with some diabetes and asthma measures, but not with coronary heart disease measures, there is still insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions. The limited number of practices in our study may have weakened our findings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Emmert M, Sander U, Esslinger AS, Maryschok M, Schoffski O. Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites. Methods Inf Med. 2012;51:112–20.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Emmert M, Meier F, Heider A, Dürr C, Sander U. What do patients say about their physicians? An analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website. Health Policy. 2014;118:66–73.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop. 2014;43:359–63.PubMed
6.
Reimann S, Strech D. The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English- and German-language sites. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
Emmert M, Meier F. An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Strech D, Reimann S. Deutschsprachige arztbewertungsportale: Der status quo ihrer bewertungskriterien, bewertungstendenzen und nutzung. German language physician rating sites: the status Quo of evaluation criteria, evaluation tendencies and utilization. Gesundheitswesen. 2012;74:e61–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Emmert M, Meier F, Pisch F, Sander U. Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Greaves F, Millett C, Nuki P. England’s experience incorporating “anecdotal” reports from consumers into their national reporting system: lessons for the united states of what to Do or Not to Do? Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71:65S–80.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Black EW, Thompson LA, Saliba H, Dawson K, Black NMP. An analysis of healthcare providers’ online ratings. Inform Prim Care. 2009;17:249–53.PubMed
13.
Kadry B, Chu L, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A. Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:942–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Sobin L, Goyal P. Trends of online ratings of otolaryngologists: what do your patients really think of you? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140:635–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Greaves F, Pape UJ, Lee H, Smith DM, Darzi A, Majeed A, et al. Patients’ ratings of family physician practices on the internet: usage and associations with conventional measures of quality in the english national health service. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Mackay B. RateMDs.com nets ire of Canadian physicians. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;176:754.CrossRef
18.
Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, Darzi A, Majeed A, Wachter RM, et al. Associations between Web-based patient ratings and objective measures of hospital quality. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:435–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Integrated Health Care Network Quality and Efficiency (Ed.): Quality Report 2012. Nuremberg; 2013
20.
Integrated Health Care Network Quality and Efficiency (Ed.): Patientenzeitschrift “Pumperlgsund in Nürnberg”. Nuremberg; 2014.
21.
Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thürmann PA. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107:543–51.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (Ed.): Weisse Liste - Fragen zur Arztsuche. Gütersloh; 2014
23.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (Ed.): Weisse Liste - Die Fragebögen: Haus- und Fachärzte. Gütersloh; 2012
24.
Verhoef LM, Van De B, Tom H, Engelen Lucien JLPG, Schoonhoven L, Kool RB. Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Beattie M, Lauder W, Atherton I, Murphy DJ. Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2014;3:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Delpierre C, Cuzin L, Fillaux J, Alvarez M, Massip P, Lang T. A systematic review of computer-based patient record systems and quality of care: more randomized clinical trials or a broader approach? Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:407–16.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Seddon ME, Marshall MN, Campbell SM, Roland MO. Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:152–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Derksen F, Bensing J, Lagro-Janssen A. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:e76–84.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e001570.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, Darzi A, Majeed A, Wachter RM, et al. Associations between Internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:600–5.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bardach NS, Asteria-Peñaloza R, Boscardin WJ, Dudley RA. The relationship between commercial website ratings and traditional hospital performance measures in the USA. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:194–202.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Fox S: The social life of health information. Pew Research Center (Ed.), Washington D.C.; 2011
34.
Office for National Statistics (Ed.): Internet Access - Households and Individuals 2012. London, UK; 2012
35.
Iverson SA, Howard KB, Penney BK. Impact of internet use on health-related behaviors and the patient-physician relationship: a survey-based study and review. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2008;108:699–711.PubMed
36.
Smith-Barbaro PA, Licciardone JC, Clarke HF, Coleridge ST. Factors associated with intended use of a Web site among family practice patients. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3:E17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Terlutter R, Bidmon S, Röttl J. 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;16:e97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Donahue KE, Ashkin E, Pathman DE. Length of patient-physician relationship and patients’ satisfaction and preventive service use in the rural south: a cross-sectional telephone study. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Gray BM, Vandergrift JL, Gao GG, McCullough JS, Lipner RS: Website ratings of physicians and their quality of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014, Dec 1. [Epub ahead of print]
40.
Koch K, Gehrmann U, Sawicki PT. Primärärztliche Versorgung in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Ergebnisse einer strukturvalidierten Ärztebefragung. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2007;104:2584–91.
41.
National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Ed.): Statistische Informationen aus dem Bundesarztregister, Bundesgebiet insgesamt (Stand: 31.12.2013). Berlin, Germany; 2014.
42.
Information System of the Federal Health Monitoring (Ed.): Staff in medical practices and personnel expenditure. Classification (2007): years, Germany, staff/expenditure, revenue groups, type of practice. Bonn, Germany. 2009.
43.
Emmert M, Meszmer N, Schöffski O: Arztbewertungsportale im Internet: Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme. IMPLICONplus – Gesundheitspolitische Analysen 2014. Manfred Albring (Ed.), Berlin; 2014
Metadata
Title
A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites
Authors
Martin Emmert
Thomas Adelhardt
Uwe Sander
Veit Wambach
Jörg Lindenthal
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1051-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Health Services Research 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

The cost of dialysis in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Research article

Guideline adherence and health outcomes in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients: a cross-sectional study

Debate

Admissions for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions - a useful measure of potentially preventable admission?

Research article

Developing family rooms in mental health inpatient units: an exploratory descriptive study

Research article

Health promotion programme design and efficacy in relation to ageing persons with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Research article

Inefficiency, heterogeneity and spillover effects in maternal care in India: a spatial stochastic frontier analysis