Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites
Open accessAbstract
Background Internet-based social networking tools that allow users to share content have enabled a new form of public reporting of physician performance: the physician-rating website.Objective To describe the structure and content of physician-rating websites and to assess the extent to which a patient might find them valuable.Methods We searched Google for websites that allowed patients to review physicians in the US. We included websites that met predetermined criteria, identified common elements of these websites, and recorded website characteristics. We then searched the websites for reviews of a random sample of 300 Boston physicians. Finally, we separately analyzed quantitative and narrative reviews.Results We identified 33 physician-rating websites, which contained 190 reviews for 81 physicians. Most reviews were positive (88%). Six percent were negative, and six percent were neutral. Generalists and subspecialists did not significantly differ in number or nature of reviews. We identified several narrative reviews that appeared to be written by the physicians themselves.Conclusion Physician-rating websites offer patients a novel way to provide feedback and obtain information about physician performance. Despite controversy surrounding these sites, their use by patients has been limited to date, and a majority of reviews appear to be positive.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most online physician reviews are positive.
“although most online physician reviews are positive, 61,62 there are those reviews that appear disproportionately poor or even constitute possible acts of sabotage from competing providers.62”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [61]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Boulos, M. N. K., & Wheeler, S. (2007) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x · Cited by 894 · see citing works
Patients' Perception of Hospital Care in the United States
Jha, A. K., Orav, E. J., Zheng, J., & Epstein, A. M. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0804116 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
Cheraghi‐Sohi, S., Hole, A. R., Mead, N., McDonald, R., Whalley, D., Bower, P., & Roland, M. O. (2008) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.816 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Content of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Self-citationChoosing The Best Hospital: The Limitations Of Public Quality Reporting
Rothberg, M. B., Morsi, E., Benjamin, E. M., Pekow, P. S., & Lindenauer, P. K. (2008) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1680 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Self-citationFung, C. H., Elliott, M. N., Hays, R. D., Kahn, K. L., Kanouse, D. E., McGlynn, E. A., Spranca, M. D., & Shekelle, P. (2005) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00395.x · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Information and shared decision-making are top patients' priorities
Schattner, A., Bronstein, A., & Jellin, N. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-21 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Will doctor rating sites improve the quality of care? No
McCartney, M. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1033 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Will doctor rating sites improve standards of care? Yes
Bacon, N. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1030 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Dolan P. Patients rarely use online ratings to pick physicians. June 23/ 30, 2008. AMedNews.com. 2008. Available at: http://www.ama-assn. org/amednews/2008/06/23/bil10623.htm [Accessed April 12, 2010].
- Solomon S. Doc's RateMDs battle turns ugly. National Review of Medicine. 2007. Available at: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine. com/issue/2007/05_15/4_patients_practice09_9.html [Accessed April 12, 2010].
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1933 · Cited by 2,517 · see citing works
Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications
Chretien, K. C., & Kind, T. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.128017 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Kadry, B., Chu, L. F., Kadry, B., Gammas, D., & Macario, A. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1960 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Social Media and Rating Sites as Tools to Understanding Quality of Care: A Scoping Review
Verhoef, L. M., Van de Belt, T. H., Engelen, L. J., Schoonhoven, L., & Kool, R. B. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3024 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Terlutter, R., Bidmon, S., & Röttl, J. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3145 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Digital social networks and health
Lefebvre, R. C., & Bornkessel, A. S. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.000897 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Ethical Principles for Physician Rating Sites
Strech, D. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1899 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Physician, Monitor Thyself: Professionalism and Accountability in the Use of Social Media
Lagu, T., & Ryan Greysen, S. (2011) · The Journal of Clinical Ethics · doi:10.1086/jce201122213 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationSocial media and Internet usage of orthopaedic surgeons
Duymuş, T. M., Karadeniz, H., Şükür, E., Atiç, R., Zehir, S., & Azboy, İ. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma · doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2016.10.007 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lagu, T., Hannon, N. S., Rothberg, M. B., & Lindenauer, P. K.
- Affiliations
- Baystate Medical Center (US)
- Tufts University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lagu, Tara
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2010-05-13
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 942-946
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC2917672
- OpenAlex
- W1999912876
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 24.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- physician rating websites, online physician reviews, social networking, patient feedback, website characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Social Support, Patient Satisfaction, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
