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
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Jun 14;20(6):e212.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.9105.

Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis

Fabia Rothenfluh  1 , Peter J Schulz  1
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis

Fabia Rothenfluh et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.

Objective: The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.

Methods: A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.

Results: The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.

Conclusions: This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.

Keywords: content analysis; health care quality assessment; health information; patient Web portals; patient reviews; physician rating websites; rating tools; website quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search term strings entered in Google, Bing, and Yahoo to collect the website sample.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screenshot of the physician-rating website okdoc.ch registered in Switzerland.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Screenshot of the physician-rating website mouthshut.com registered in India.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. J Am Med Assoc. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283194.1829975 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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 Aug;15(8):e187. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2702. http://www.jmir.org/2013/8/e187/ v15i8e187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Merchant RM, Volpp KG, Asch DA. Learning by listening-improving health care in the era of yelp. J Am Med Assoc. 2016 Dec 20;316(23):2483–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16754.2593580 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strech D. Ethical principles for physician rating sites. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec;13(4):e113. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1899. http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e113/ v13i4e113 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patel S, Cain R, Neailey K, Hooberman L. 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. http://www.jmir.org/2015/12/e276/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources