Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites
- PMID: 24686918
- PMCID: PMC4004145
- DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3145
Who uses physician-rating websites? Differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites
Abstract
Background: The number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs.
Objective: We focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers.
Methods: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients' knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions.
Results: A total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t967=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ(2) 1=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ(2) 4=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ(2) 1=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t489=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t520=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t612=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t559=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t367=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t619=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs.
Conclusions: Sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.
Keywords: digital literacy; physician-rating websites; psychographic variables; sociodemographic variables.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Similar articles
-
What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire.J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 11;16(6):e148. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3122. J Med Internet Res. 2014. PMID: 24918859 Free PMC article.
-
Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PLoS One. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0278510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278510. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36584030 Free PMC article.
-
An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 6;15(8):e157. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2655. J Med Internet Res. 2013. PMID: 23919987 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 German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis.Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Nov;137-138:42-53. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2018.07.010. Epub 2018 Sep 3. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018. PMID: 30190204 Review.
Cited by
-
Using patient experiences on Dutch social media to supervise health care services: exploratory study.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jan 15;17(1):e7. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3906. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 25592481 Free PMC article.
-
General Practitioners' Concerns About Online Patient Feedback: Findings From a Descriptive Exploratory Qualitative Study in England.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Dec 8;17(12):e276. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4989. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 26681299 Free PMC article.
-
Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the Arab world: a cross-sectional study.Glob Health Res Policy. 2021 Jul 12;6(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s41256-021-00202-6. Glob Health Res Policy. 2021. PMID: 34253254 Free PMC article.
-
The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR Form Res. 2023 May 4;7:e39857. doi: 10.2196/39857. JMIR Form Res. 2023. PMID: 37140959 Free PMC article.
-
Gender Differences in Searching for Health Information on the Internet and the Virtual Patient-Physician Relationship in Germany: Exploratory Results on How Men and Women Differ and Why.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 22;17(6):e156. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4127. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 26099325 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Duan W, Gu B, Whinston AB. Do online reviews matter? — An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems. 2008 Nov;45(4):1007–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/8/58 - DOI
-
- O'Grady LA, Witteman H, Wathen CN. The experiential health information processing model: supporting collaborative web-based patient education. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:58. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-58. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/8/58 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- López A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U. What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27(6):685–92. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22215270 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- 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 Sep;25(9):942–6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1383-0. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20464523 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources