The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Changing Landscape of Physician Quality Reporting: Analysis of Patients’ Online Ratings of Their Physicians Over a 5-Year Period
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Americans increasingly post and consult online physician rankings, yet we know little about this new phenomenon of public physician quality reporting. Physicians worry these rankings will become an outlet for disgruntled patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in patients' online ratings over time, across specialties, to identify what physician characteristics influence online ratings, and to examine how the value of ratings reflects physician quality. METHODS: We used data from RateMDs.com, which included over 386,000 national ratings from 2005 to 2010 and provided insight into the evolution of patients' online ratings. We obtained physician demographic data from the US Department of Health and Human Services' Area Resource File. Finally, we matched patients' ratings with physician-level data from the Virginia Medical Board and examined the probability of being rated and resultant rating levels. RESULTS: We estimate that 1 in 6 practicing US physicians received an online review by January 2010. Obstetrician/gynecologists were twice as likely to be rated (P < .001) as other physicians. Online reviews were generally quite positive (mean 3.93 on a scale of 1 to 5). Based on the Virginia physician population, long-time graduates were more likely to be rated, while physicians who graduated in recent years received higher average ratings (P < .001). Patients gave slightly higher ratings to board-certified physicians (P = .04), those who graduated from highly rated medical schools (P = .002), and those without malpractice claims (P = .1). CONCLUSION: Online physician rating is rapidly growing in popularity and becoming commonplace with no evidence that they are dominated by disgruntled patients. There exist statistically significant correlations between the value of ratings and physician experience, board certification, education, and malpractice claims, suggesting a positive correlation between online ratings and physician quality. However, the magnitude is small. The average number of ratings per physician is still low, and most rating variation reflects evaluations of punctuality and staff. Understanding whether they truly reflect better care and how they are used will be critically important.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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 886
Self-citationCare in U.S. Hospitals — The Hospital Quality Alliance Program
Jha, A. K., Li, Z., Orav, E. J., & Epstein, A. M. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa051249 · Cited by 483
Self-citationLagu, T., Hannon, N. S., Rothberg, M. B., & Lindenauer, P. K. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1383-0 · Cited by 290
Cardiac surgery report cards: comprehensive review and statistical critique
Shahian, D. M., Normand, S.-L., Torchiana, D. F., Lewis, S. M., Pastore, J. O., Kuntz, R. E., & Dreyer, P. I. (2001) · The Annals of Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(01)03222-2 · Cited by 281
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
The Predictive Accuracy Of The New York State Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Report-Card System
Jha, A. K., & Epstein, A. M. (2006) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.3.844 · Cited by 124
Self-citationReimann, S., & Strech, D. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-332 · Cited by 82
Putting the Public Back in Public Reporting of Health Care Quality
Lagu, T. C., & Lindenauer, P. K. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1499 · Cited by 68
Googling Ourselves — What Physicians Can Learn from Online Rating Sites
Jain, S. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0903473 · Cited by 64
A Report Card on Provider Report Cards: Current Status of the Health Care Transparency Movement
Christianson, J. B., Volmar, K. M., Alexander, J., & Scanlon, D. P. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1438-2 · Cited by 64
Will doctor rating sites improve the quality of care? No
McCartney, M. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1033 · Cited by 59
Ethical Principles for Physician Rating Sites
Strech, D. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1899 · Cited by 53
An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
Black, E. W., Thompson, L. A., Saliba, H., Dawson, K., & Black, N. P. (2009) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v17i4.744 · Cited by 50
Cited by
Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3277 · Cited by 1,363
Vocal Minority and Silent Majority: How Do Online Ratings Reflect Population Perceptions of Quality?
Gao, G. (., Greenwood, B. N., Agarwal, R., & McCullough, P. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2629837 · Cited by 278
Self-citationHarnessing the cloud of patient experience: using social media to detect poor quality healthcare
Greaves, F., Ramirez-Cano, D., Millett, C., Darzi, A., & Donaldson, L. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001527 · Cited by 272
Internet’s Dirty Secret: Assessing the Impact of Online Intermediaries on HIV Transmission1
Chan, J., & Ghose, A. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.01 · Cited by 178
Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare
Agarwal, R., Dugas, M., Gao, G. (., & Kannan, P. K. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00692-4 · Cited by 175
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, G. G., McCullough, J. S., Agarwal, R., & Jha, A. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2012-02-24
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e38
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081307860
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 42.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.