• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Investigation of Radiation Oncologists' Awareness of Online Reputation Management.放射肿瘤学家对在线声誉管理的认知调查。
JMIR Cancer. 2019 Apr 1;5(1):e10530. doi: 10.2196/10530.
2
What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades.患者如何看待他们的放射肿瘤学家?对Healthgrades网站上患者在线评论的评估。
Cureus. 2018 Feb 6;10(2):e2165. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2165.
3
Radiation Oncologist Perceptions and Utilization of Digital Patient Assessment Platforms.放射肿瘤学家对数字患者评估平台的认知与应用
Appl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Sep;9(3):24-29.
4
Online Reputation Management for Urologists.泌尿科医生的在线声誉管理
Urol Pract. 2015 Mar;2(2):69-72. doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2014.09.007. Epub 2014 Dec 31.
5
A population-based study of the prevalence and influence of gifts to radiation oncologists from pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers.一项基于人群的关于制药公司和医疗设备制造商向放射肿瘤学家赠送礼品的患病率及影响的研究。
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Aug 1;59(5):1477-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.01.052.
6
Oncologist Support for Consolidated Payments for Cancer Care Management in the United States.美国肿瘤学家对癌症护理管理综合支付的支持。
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016 Jul;9(5):280-9.
7
Radiation oncologist perceptions of therapeutic cannabis use among cancer patients.放疗肿瘤学家对癌症患者使用治疗性大麻的看法。
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Oct;29(10):5991-5997. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06160-6. Epub 2021 Mar 26.
8
Reputation Management and Content Control: An Analysis of Radiation Oncologists' Digital Identities.声誉管理与内容控制:放射肿瘤学家数字身份分析
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1083-1091. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.08.015. Epub 2017 Aug 19.
9
Faculty of Radiation Oncology survey of work practices.放射肿瘤学系工作实践调查。
Australas Radiol. 1999 May;43(2):233-42. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1673.1999.00640.x.
10
Are Future Radiation Oncologists Equipped With the Knowledge to Manage Elderly Patients With Cancer?未来的放射肿瘤学家是否具备管理老年癌症患者的知识?
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jul 15;98(4):743-747. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.001. Epub 2017 Jan 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of Online Urologist Ratings: Are Rating Differences Associated With Subspecialty?在线泌尿科医生评分分析:评分差异与亚专业有关吗?
J Patient Exp. 2020 Dec;7(6):1062-1067. doi: 10.1177/2374373520951901. Epub 2020 Aug 24.
2
Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.泌尿科医生的在线评分:综合分析
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 2;21(7):e12436. doi: 10.2196/12436.

本文引用的文献

1
What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades.患者如何看待他们的放射肿瘤学家?对Healthgrades网站上患者在线评论的评估。
Cureus. 2018 Feb 6;10(2):e2165. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2165.
2
Reputation Management and Content Control: An Analysis of Radiation Oncologists' Digital Identities.声誉管理与内容控制:放射肿瘤学家数字身份分析
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1083-1091. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.08.015. Epub 2017 Aug 19.
3
Attitudes of radiation oncologists toward palliative and supportive care in the United States: Report on national membership survey by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).美国放射肿瘤学家对姑息治疗和支持性护理的态度:美国放射肿瘤学会(ASTRO)全国会员调查结果报告
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Mar-Apr;7(2):113-119. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.08.017. Epub 2016 Sep 7.
4
Identifying Quality Indicators Used by Patients to Choose Secondary Health Care Providers: A Mixed Methods Approach.确定患者选择二级医疗保健提供者时使用的质量指标:混合方法研究。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Jun 5;3(2):e65. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3808.
5
Parental use of online physician rating sites.家长对在线医生评分网站的使用。
J Pediatr Nurs. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):268-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2014.10.003. Epub 2014 Oct 8.
6
Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites.公众对在线医生评分网站的认知、看法及使用情况。
JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283194.
7
More than one-third of US individuals use the Internet to self-diagnose.超过三分之一的美国人通过互联网进行自我诊断。
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):756-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.629.
8
The use of social media in healthcare: organizational, clinical, and patient perspectives.社交媒体在医疗保健中的应用:组织、临床和患者视角。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;183:244-8.
9
A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.医生质量报告的变化态势:对患者在5年期间对其医生的在线评分的分析
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 24;14(1):e38. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2003.
10
Radiation oncologists in the United States.美国的放射肿瘤学家。
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Oct 1;69(2):518-27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.053. Epub 2007 May 10.

放射肿瘤学家对在线声誉管理的认知调查。

Investigation of Radiation Oncologists' Awareness of Online Reputation Management.

作者信息

Waxer Jonathan Fredric, Srivastav Sudesh, DiBiase Christian Steven, DiBiase Steven Joseph

机构信息

Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Department of Global Biostatistics and Data Science, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.

出版信息

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

DOI:10.2196/10530
PMID:30932863
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6462885/
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.

摘要

背景

在线声誉管理(ORM)是一种新兴的实践策略,强调对与个人职业声誉相关的在线评论进行系统且主动的监测。

目的

我们开展了这项调查项目,以评估放射肿瘤学家是否了解在线声誉管理以及该策略在他们的实践中是如何应用的。我们假设大多数执业放射肿瘤学家对在线声誉管理知之甚少,并且在积极管理自身声誉方面花费的时间很少。

方法

通过Qualtrics研究平台向1222名放射肿瘤学家发送了在线调查问卷。医生的电子邮件是从美国放射肿瘤学会会员名录中收集的。共有85名医生开始参与调查,其中76名医生完成了超过或等于94%(15/16)的调查问卷问题,随后被纳入我们的分析。该调查包括15个问题,询问了执业人口统计学、患者满意度测定、对在线声誉管理的理解以及应对在线声誉管理的活动,还有1个问题让医生选择是否参加50美元亚马逊礼品卡抽奖。调查数据使用频率表进行汇总,并使用卡方检验、费舍尔精确检验和斯皮尔曼相关系数进行分析。

结果

我们的调查计算得出回复率为7%(85/1222),完成率为89%(76/85)。大多数受访者(97%,74/76)认可对患者满意度有所关注或高度关注(P<.001)。然而,58%(44/76)的受访者表示每周花0小时查看或管理他们的在线声誉,39%(30/76)的受访者表示每周花费不到1小时(P<.001)。大多数医生(58%,44/76)表示不熟悉在线声誉管理(P<.001),70%(53/76)的医生没有积极管理他们的在线声誉(P<.001)。尽管83%(63/76)的受访者强烈或 somewhat 认为患者会阅读在线评论(P<.001),但57%(43/76)的受访者没有查看他们的在线评论(P=.25),80%(61/76)的受访者认可从不回复在线评论(P<.001)。此外,58%(44/76)的受访者强烈或 somewhat 支持未来管理他们在线声誉的想法(P=.001)。另外,在我们相关性研究中提出的28对问题中有11对达到了统计学显著性。在我们的分析中,对患者满意度的关注程度和未来管理个人在线声誉的观念是两个最常出现统计学显著相关性的主题。

结论

在线声誉管理目前在放射肿瘤学领域未得到充分认识。尽管大多数从业者关注患者满意度,但在这方面针对互联网的努力却很少。在线声誉管理为许多执业放射肿瘤学家提供了一个实践改进的领域。