Ethical principles for physician rating sites
- PMID: 22146737
- PMCID: PMC3278099
- DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1899
Ethical principles for physician rating sites
Abstract
During the last 5 years, an ethical debate has emerged, often in public media, about the potential positive and negative effects of physician rating sites and whether physician rating sites created by insurance companies or government agencies are ethical in their current states. Due to the lack of direct evidence of physician rating sites' effects on physicians' performance, patient outcomes, or the public's trust in health care, most contributions refer to normative arguments, hypothetical effects, or indirect evidence. This paper aims, first, to structure the ethical debate about the basic concept of physician rating sites: allowing patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians' performance, online and visible to everyone. Thus, it provides a more thorough and transparent starting point for further discussion and decision making on physician rating sites: what should physicians and health policy decision makers take into account when discussing the basic concept of physician rating sites and its possible implications on the physician-patient relationship? Second, it discusses where and how the preexisting evidence from the partly related field of public reporting of physician performance can serve as an indicator for specific needs of evaluative research in the field of physician rating sites. This paper defines the ethical principles of patient welfare, patient autonomy, physician welfare, and social justice in the context of physician rating sites. It also outlines basic conditions for a fair decision-making process concerning the implementation and regulation of physician rating sites, namely, transparency, justification, participation, minimization of conflicts of interest, and openness for revision. Besides other issues described in this paper, one trade-off presents a special challenge and will play an important role when deciding about more- or less-restrictive physician rating sites regulations: the potential psychological and financial harms for physicians that can result from physician rating sites need to be contained without limiting the potential benefits for patients with respect to health, health literacy, and equity.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared
Comment in
-
Internet report cards for doctors: threat or opportunity?Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):130-1. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2012.041. Indian J Med Ethics. 2012. PMID: 22591879 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Physician-Rating Web Sites: Ethical Implications.J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jan;41(1):104-10.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.05.034. Epub 2015 Aug 22. J Hand Surg Am. 2016. PMID: 26304734
-
[The origin of informed consent].Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005. PMID: 16602332 Italian.
-
Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors.J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 6;22(4):e14134. doi: 10.2196/14134. J Med Internet Res. 2020. PMID: 32250275 Free PMC article.
-
Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards.Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):620-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00100. Ann Intern Med. 2013. PMID: 23579867
-
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003. PMID: 14698953 Review.
Cited by
-
Consumer Decision-Making Based on Review Websites: Are There Differences Between Choosing a Hotel and Choosing a Physician?J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 16;18(6):e129. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5580. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 27311623 Free PMC article.
-
Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google.Sarcoma. 2022 Dec 10;2022:4351427. doi: 10.1155/2022/4351427. eCollection 2022. Sarcoma. 2022. PMID: 36536691 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.
-
Do Physicians Respond to Web-Based Patient Ratings? An Analysis of Physicians' Responses to More Than One Million Web-Based Ratings Over a Six-Year Period.J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jul 26;19(7):e275. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7538. J Med Internet Res. 2017. PMID: 28747292 Free PMC article.
-
Elements of Trust in Digital Health Systems: Scoping Review.J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 13;20(12):e11254. doi: 10.2196/11254. J Med Internet Res. 2018. PMID: 30545807 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-332. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/3321472-6963-10-332 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Kadry B, Chu LF, 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(4):e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1960. http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e95/v13i4e95 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical