Physician Gender, Patient Risk, and Web-Based Reviews: Longitudinal Study of the Relationship Between Physicians' Gender and Their Web-Based Reviews.

BACKGROUND

Web-based reviews of physicians have become exceedingly popular among health care consumers since the early 2010s. A factor that can potentially influence these reviews is the gender of the physician, because the physician's gender has been found to influence patient-physician communication. Our study is among the first to conduct a rigorous longitudinal analysis to study the effects of the gender of physicians on their reviews, after accounting for several important clinical factors, including patient risk, physician specialty, and temporal factors, using time fixed effects. In addition, this study is among the first to study the possible gender bias in web-based reviews using statewide data from Alabama, a predominantly rural state with high Medicaid and Medicare use.

OBJECTIVE

This study conducts a longitudinal empirical investigation of the relationship between physician gender and their web-based reviews using data across the state of Alabama, after accounting for patient risk and temporal effects.

METHODS

We created a unique data set by combining data from web-based physician reviews from the popular physician review website, RateMDs, and clinical data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the state of Alabama. We used longitudinal econometric specifications to conduct an econometric analysis, while controlling for several important clinical and review characteristics across four rating dimensions (helpfulness, knowledge, staff, and punctuality). The overall rating and these four rating dimensions from RateMDs were used as the dependent variables, and physician gender was the key explanatory variable in our panel regression models.

RESULTS

The panel used to conduct the main econometric analysis included 1093 physicians. After controlling for several clinical and review factors, the physician random effects specifications showed that male physicians receive better web-based ratings than female physicians. Coefficients and corresponding SEs and P values of the binary variable GenderFemale (1 for female physicians and 0 otherwise) with different rating variables as outcomes were as follows: OverallRating (coefficient -0.194, SE 0.060; P=.001), HelpfulnessRating (coefficient -0.221, SE 0.069; P=.001), KnowledgeRating (coefficient -0.230, SE 0.065; P<.001), StaffRating (coefficient -0.123, SE 0.062; P=.049), and PunctualityRating (coefficient -0.200, SE 0.067; P=.003). The negative coefficients indicate a bias toward male physicians versus female physicians for aforementioned rating variables.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that female physicians receive lower web-based ratings than male physicians even after accounting for several clinical characteristics associated with the physicians and temporal effects. Although the magnitude of the coefficients of GenderFemale was relatively small, they were statistically significant. This study provides support to the findings on gender bias in the existing health care literature. We contribute to the existing literature by conducting a study using data across the state of Alabama and using a longitudinal econometric analysis, along with incorporating important clinical and review controls associated with the physicians.