Emmert Martin, Sander Uwe, Pisch Frank
Institute of Management IFM, School of Business and Economics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg 90411, Germany.
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 1;15(2):e24. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2360.
Physician-rating websites (PRWs) are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited.
To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about PRWs.
Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on PRWs? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with PRWs? 7) What major shortcomings do PRWs have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of PRWs?
Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of PRWs is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on PRWs were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on PRWs; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented.
Although the number of publications is still low, PRWs are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of PRWs is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients' perspective.
医生评级网站(PRWs)目前越来越受欢迎,因为它们提高了医疗保健系统的透明度。然而,关于这些平台的特征和内容的研究仍然有限。
识别并综合同行评审期刊中关于医生评级网站经常讨论问题的已发表证据。
在七个数据库(通过PubMed的Medline、Cochrane图书馆、商业资源完整版、ABI/Inform完整版、PsycInfo、Scopus和ISI知识网络)中搜索无时间限制的同行评审英文和德文文献。此外,对纳入研究的参考文献列表进行筛选以确保完整性。解决了以下八个预先定义的问题:1)被评级的医生占比是多少?2)医生评级网站上的平均评级数量是多少?3)被评级医生在社会经济地位方面是否存在差异?4)评级更有可能是正面的还是负面的?5)患者叙述有什么意义?6)医生应如何应对医生评级网站?7)医生评级网站有哪些主要缺点?8)对于进一步改进医生评级网站可以提出哪些建议?
同行评审期刊上发表的24篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。大多数研究由美国(n = 13)和德国(n = 8)的研究人员发表;然而,重点差异很大。医生评级网站的当前使用率仍然较低,但正在上升。国际数据显示,六分之一的医生已被评级,医生评级网站上所有评级中约90%是正面的。尽管这常常令人担忧,但我们没有找到任何“抨击医生”的证据。医生不应忽视这些网站,而应监控可用信息并将其用于内部和外部目的。几个缺点限制了医生评级网站上发表结果的重要性;提出了一些解决这些限制的建议。
尽管出版物数量仍然较少,但医生评级网站在研究中受到越来越多的关注。但医生评级网站的现状存在不足。在美国和德国都是如此。有必要进行进一步研究以提高网站质量,特别是从患者的角度。