CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Patient Satisfaction in HealthcareSocial Media in Health EducationDigital Marketing and Social Media

Social Media and Rating Sites as Tools to Understanding Quality of Care: A Scoping Review

Open access
Verhoef, Lise M, Van de Belt, Tom H, Engelen, Lucien JLPG, Schoonhoven, Lisette, Kool, Rudolf B·2014·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/jmir.3024PMC PMC3961699
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Insight into the quality of health care is important for any stakeholder including patients, professionals, and governments. In light of a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient's perspective, which is commonly done with surveys or focus groups. Unfortunately, these "traditional" methods have significant limitations that include social desirability bias, a time lag between experience and measurement, and difficulty reaching large groups of people. Information on social media could be of value to overcoming these limitations, since these new media are easy to use and are used by the majority of the population. Furthermore, an increasing number of people share health care experiences online or rate the quality of their health care provider on physician rating sites. The question is whether this information is relevant to determining or predicting the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our research was to systematically analyze the relation between information shared on social media and quality of care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review with the following goals: (1) to map the literature on the association between social media and quality of care, (2) to identify different mechanisms of this relationship, and (3) to determine a more detailed agenda for this relatively new research area. A recognized scoping review methodology was used. We developed a search strategy based on four themes: social media, patient experience, quality, and health care. Four online scientific databases were searched, articles were screened, and data extracted. Results related to the research question were described and categorized according to type of social media. Furthermore, national and international stakeholders were consulted throughout the study, to discuss and interpret results. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 21 were concerned with health care rating sites. Several studies indicate a relationship between information on social media and quality of health care. However, some drawbacks exist, especially regarding the use of rating sites. For example, since rating is anonymous, rating values are not risk adjusted and therefore vulnerable to fraud. Also, ratings are often based on only a few reviews and are predominantly positive. Furthermore, people providing feedback on health care via social media are presumably not always representative for the patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Social media and particularly rating sites are an interesting new source of information about quality of care from the patient's perspective. This new source should be used to complement traditional methods, since measuring quality of care via social media has other, but not less serious, limitations. Future research should explore whether social media are suitable in practice for patients, health insurers, and governments to help them judge the quality performance of professionals and organizations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.3024

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A doctor's online profile will be developed even without their participation via increasing use of third-party review sites.

    “This only further marginalizes doctors from developing experience and fluency in the use of the technology and ignores the fact that as time goes on a doctor’s online profile will be developed even without their participation via the increasing use of third-party review sites [40,41] such as RateMDs.com and Google Reviews.”

    From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Introduction says patients can rate individual doctors on physician-rating sites and that these sites are growing despite resistance from the medical profession. This supports the idea that an online reputation can develop without a doctor's participation, but the paper does not establish that every doctor will acquire an online profile. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Verhoef, L. M., Van de Belt, T. H., Engelen, L. J., Schoonhoven, L., & Kool, R. B.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Verhoef, Lise M
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2014-02-20
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
e56
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/jmir.3024
PMC
PMC3961699
OpenAlex
W2137260826
Cited by
130
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
social media, quality of care, patient experience, patient feedback, risk adjustment, patient-centered care, quality measurement
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Social Media

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