McGrath Robert J, Priestley Jennifer Lewis, Zhou Yiyun, Culligan Patrick J
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.
Graduate College, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, United States.
Interact J Med Res. 2018 Apr 9;7(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.9350.
Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians.
The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review.
We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not.
Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not.
The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization.
来自评级网站的信息越来越多地影响患者在医疗保健和医生选择方面的决策。
本研究旨在通过与同行评审进行比较,确定在线患者对医生的评级的有效性。
我们从美国10个最大城市提取了对41104名医生的223715条评论,其中包括通过同行评审被列为“美国顶级医生”的1142名医生。对上榜医生和未上榜医生的在线患者平均评分差异进行了测试。
总体而言,基于同行评审状态的在线患者评分之间没有差异。然而,在四个专科(家庭医学、过敏症专科、内科和儿科)中发现了统计学差异,被列为同行评审“顶级医生”的医生的在线患者评分显著高于未上榜医生。
这项大规模研究的结果表明,虽然在线患者评分与四个非手术、主要在门诊的专科的同行评审一致,但患者评分与麻醉学等专科的同行评审不一致。这一结果表明,患者评分的有效性因医学专科而异。