Pike C William, Zillioux Jacqueline, Rapp David
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.
Department of Urology, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 2;21(7):e12436. doi: 10.2196/12436.
Physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to help guide physician choice. As such, an understanding of these websites and factors that influence ratings is valuable to physicians.
We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of online urology ratings information, with a specific focus on the relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall physician rating.
We analyzed urologist ratings on the Healthgrades website. The data retrieval focused on physician and staff ratings information. Our analysis included descriptive statistics of physician and staff ratings and correlation analysis between physician or staff performance and overall physician rating. Finally, we performed a best-fit analysis to assess for an association between number of physician ratings and overall rating.
From a total of 9921 urology profiles analyzed, there were 99,959 ratings and 23,492 comments. Most ratings were either 5 ("excellent") (67.53%, 67,505/99,959) or 1 ("poor") (24.22%, 24,218/99,959). All physician and staff performance ratings demonstrated a positive and statistically significant correlation with overall physician rating (P<.001 for all analyses). Best-fit analysis demonstrated a negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating until physicians achieved 21 ratings or 6 comments. Thereafter, a positive relationship was seen.
In our study, a dichotomous rating distribution was seen with more than 90% of ratings being either excellent or poor. A negative relationship between number of ratings or comments and overall rating was initially seen, after which a positive relationship was demonstrated. Combined, these data suggest that physicians can benefit from understanding online ratings and that proactive steps to encourage patient rating submissions may help optimize overall rating.
患者越来越多地使用医生评分网站来辅助指导医生选择。因此，了解这些网站以及影响评分的因素对医生来说很有价值。
我们试图对在线泌尿外科评分信息进行全面分析，特别关注评分或评论数量与医生总体评分之间的关系。
我们分析了Healthgrades网站上泌尿科医生的评分。数据检索集中在医生和工作人员的评分信息上。我们的分析包括医生和工作人员评分的描述性统计，以及医生或工作人员表现与医生总体评分之间的相关性分析。最后，我们进行了最佳拟合分析，以评估医生评分数量与总体评分之间的关联。
在总共分析的9921份泌尿外科档案中，有99959条评分和23492条评论。大多数评分要么是5分（“优秀”）（67.53%，67505/99959），要么是1分（“差”）（24.22%，24218/99959）。所有医生和工作人员的表现评分与医生总体评分均呈正相关且具有统计学意义（所有分析P<.001）。最佳拟合分析表明，在医生获得21条评分或6条评论之前，评分或评论数量与总体评分呈负相关。此后，则呈现正相关。
在我们的研究中，评分分布呈两极分化，超过90%的评分要么是优秀要么是差。最初观察到评分或评论数量与总体评分呈负相关，之后则呈现正相关。综合来看，这些数据表明医生可以从了解在线评分中受益，积极鼓励患者提交评分可能有助于优化总体评分。
