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
. 2019 Apr 1;5(1):e10530.
doi: 10.2196/10530.

Investigation of Radiation Oncologists' Awareness of Online Reputation Management

Jonathan Fredric Waxer  1 , Sudesh Srivastav  2 , Christian Steven DiBiase  3 , Steven Joseph DiBiase  4
Affiliations

Investigation of Radiation Oncologists' Awareness of Online Reputation Management

Jonathan Fredric Waxer et al. JMIR Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Online reputation management (ORM) is an emerging practice strategy that emphasizes the systematic and proactive monitoring of online reviews relating to one's professional reputation.

Objective: We developed this survey project to assess whether radiation oncologists are aware of ORM and how it is utilized in their practices. We hypothesized that ORM is largely unknown by most practicing radiation oncologists and that little time is spent actively managing their reputations.

Methods: An online survey was submitted to 1222 radiation oncologists using the Qualtrics research platform. Physician emails were gathered from the American Society for Radiation Oncology member directory. A total of 85 physicians initiated the survey, whereas 76 physicians completed more than or equal to 94% (15/16) of the survey questions and were subsequently used in our analyses. The survey consisted of 15 questions querying practice demographics, patient satisfaction determination, ORM understanding, and activities to address ORM and 1 question for physicians to opt-in to a US $50 Amazon gift card raffle. The survey data were summarized using a frequency table, and data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation coefficients.

Results: We calculated a 7% (85/1222) response rate for our survey, with a completion rate of 89% (76/85). A majority of respondents (97%, 74/76) endorsed being somewhat or strongly concerned about patient satisfaction (P<.001). However, 58% (44/76) of respondents reported spending 0 hours per week reviewing or managing their online reputation and 39% (30/76) reported spending less than 1 hour per week (P<.001). A majority of physicians (58%, 44/76) endorsed no familiarity with ORM (P<.001) and 70% (53/76) did not actively manage their online reputation (P<.001). Although 83% (63/76) of respondents strongly or somewhat believed that patients read online reviews (P<.001), 57% (43/76) of respondents did not check their online reviews (P=.25) and 80% (61/76) endorsed never responding to online reviews (P<.001). Moreover, 58% (44/76) of the respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea of managing their online reputation going forward (P=.001). In addition, 11 out of the 28 pairs of questions asked in our correlation studies reached statistical significance. Degree of concern for patient satisfaction and the notion of managing one's ORM going forward were the 2 most frequently correlated topics of statistical significance in our analyses.

Conclusions: ORM is presently under-recognized in radiation oncology. Although most practitioners are concerned about patient satisfaction, little effort is directed toward the internet on this matter. ORM offers an area of practice improvement for many practicing radiation oncologists.

Keywords: internet; management; patient satisfaction; radiation oncology; reputation; surveys and questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: SJB is an author for UpToDate on External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer, Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer, and Radiation Therapy for the Management of Painful Bone Metastases. JFW, SKS, and CSD have nothing to disclose.

References

    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [2018-03-27]. HCAHPS: Patients' Perspectives of Care Survey https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Inst... .
    1. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001 Dec;16(6):671–92. doi: 10.1093/her/16.6.671. http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=11780707 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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(1):e38. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2003. http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e38/ v14i1e38 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    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. Keckley P, Coughlin S, Eselius L. State Coverage Initiatives. 2011. [2018-03-27]. 2011 Survey of Health Care Consumers in the United States: Key Findings, Strategic Implications http://www.statecoverage.org/files/Deloitte_US_CHS_2011ConsumerSurveyinU... .