Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun;27(6):685-92.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4. Epub 2012 Jan 4.

What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis

Andrea López  1 , Alissa Detz, Neda Ratanawongsa, Urmimala Sarkar
Affiliations

What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis

Andrea López et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Doctor rating websites are a burgeoning trend, yet little is known about their content.

Objective: To explore the content of Internet reviews about primary care physicians.

Design: Qualitative content analysis of 712 online reviews from two rating websites. We purposively sampled reviews of 445 primary care doctors (internists and family practitioners) from four geographically dispersed U.S. urban locations. We report the major themes, and because this is a large sample, the frequencies of domains within our coding scheme.

Results: Most reviews (63%) were positive, recommending the physician. We found a major distinction between global reviews, "Dr. B is a great doctor." vs. specific descriptions which included interpersonal manner, "She always listens to what I have to say and answers all my questions."; technical competence "No matter who she has recommended re: MD specialists, this MD has done everything right."; and/or systems issues such as appointment and telephone access. Among specific reviews, interpersonal manner "Dr. A is so compassionate." and technical competence "He is knowledgeable, will research your case before giving you advice." comments tended to be more positive (69% and 80%, respectively), whereas systems-issues comments "Staff is so-so, less professional than should be…" were more mixed (60% positive, 40% negative).

Conclusions: The majority of Internet reviews of primary care physicians are positive in nature. Our findings reaffirm that the care encounter extends beyond the patient-physician dyad; staff, access, and convenience all affect patient's reviews of physicians. In addition, negative interpersonal reviews underscore the importance of well-perceived bedside manner for a successful patient-physician interaction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Method for selecting and including physician reviews.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Predominant Factors in Themes Emerging from a Qualitative Content Analysis of Online Evaluations of Internal and Family Medicine Physicians for Four U.S. Cities in 2009.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shinchuk LM, Chiou P, Czarnowski V, Meleger AL. Demographics and attitudes of chronic-pain patients who seek online pain-related medical information: implications for healthcare providers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil;89(2):141-6. - PubMed
    1. Hay MC, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Wick K, Giesser B. Why patients go online: multiple sclerosis, the Internet, and physician-patient communication. Neurologist. 2008;14(6):374–81. doi: 10.1097/NRL.0b013e31817709bb. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hay MC, Cadigan RJ, Khanna D, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Altman R, et al. Prepared patients: Internet information seeking by new rheumatology patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(4):575–82. doi: 10.1002/art.23533. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rochman B. Health group therapy. Why so many patients are sharing their medical data online. Time;175(5):47-8. - PubMed
    1. Frost J, Massagli M. PatientsLikeMe the case for a data-centered patient community and how ALS patients use the community to inform treatment decisions and manage pulmonary health. Chron Respir Dis. 2009;6(4):225–9. - PubMed

Publication types