Who Uses Physician-Rating Websites? Differences in Sociodemographic Variables, Psychographic Variables, and Health Status of Users and Nonusers of Physician-Rating Websites
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The number of physician-rating websites (PRWs) is rising rapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussion about what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs. OBJECTIVE: We focused on sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of PRW users and nonusers. METHODS: An online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients was conducted in September 2012. We analyzed the patients' knowledge and use of online PRWs. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, and education), psychographic variables (eg, feelings toward the Internet, digital literacy), and health status on use or nonuse as well as the judgment of and behavior intentions toward PRWs. The survey instrument was based on existing literature and was guided by several research questions. RESULTS: A total of 29.3% (289/986) of the sample knew of a PRW and 26.1% (257/986) had already used a PRW. Younger people were more prone than older ones to use PRWs (t967=2.27, P=.02). Women used them more than men (χ(2) 1=9.4, P=.002), the more highly educated more than less educated people (χ(2) 4=19.7, P=.001), and people with chronic diseases more than people without (χ(2) 1=5.6, P=.02). No differences were found between users and nonusers in their daily private Internet use and in their use of the Internet for health-related information. Users had more positive feelings about the Internet and other Web-based applications in general (t489=3.07, P=.002) than nonusers, and they had higher digital literacy (t520=4.20, P<.001). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs than nonusers (t612=11.61, P<.001) and users trusted information on PRWs to a greater degree than nonusers (t559=11.48, P<.001). Users were also more likely to rate a physician on a PRW in the future (t367=7.63, P<.001) and to use a PRW in the future (t619=15.01, P<.001). The results of 2 binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education) and health status alone did not predict whether persons were prone to use PRWs or not. Adding psychographic variables and information-seeking behavior variables to the binary logistic regression analyses led to a satisfying fit of the model and revealed that higher education, poorer health status, higher digital literacy (at the 10% level of significance), lower importance of family and pharmacist for health-related information, higher trust in information on PRWs, and higher appraisal of usefulness of PRWs served as significant predictors for usage of PRWs. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of PRWs; specific psychographic variables and health status need to be taken into account. The results can help designers of PRWs to better tailor their product to specific target groups, which may increase use of PRWs in the future.
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?
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 [40]
The Introduction’s “Development of Physician-Rating Websites” section says these sites provide physician information, allow patients to rate doctors, and have grown in number. This supports the possibility of a patient-generated online profile, but the paper does not establish that a doctor’s profile will be developed without their participation. (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
Eysenbach, G. (2004) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 · Cited by 6,480 · see citing works
eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World.
Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 · Cited by 2,643 · see citing works
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
Do online reviews matter? — An empirical investigation of panel data
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001 · Cited by 1,672 · see citing works
Do Online Reviews Matter? - an Empirical Investigation of Panel DataPreprint
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 1,028 · see citing works
Rice, R. E. (2005) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032 · Cited by 721 · see citing works
Gao, G. G., McCullough, J. S., Agarwal, R., & Jha, A. K. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2003 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Lagu, 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 · see citing works
Iverson, S. A., Howard, K., & Penney, B. K. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 274 · see citing works
What Patients Say About Their Doctors Online: A Qualitative Content Analysis
López, A., Detz, A. A., Ratanawongsa, N., & Sarkar, U. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4 · Cited by 247 · 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
Emmert, M., Meier, F., Pisch, F., & Sander, U. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2702 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Renahy, É., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2008) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-69 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review
Emmert, M., Sander, U., & Pisch, F. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2360 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Couper, M. P., Singer, E., Levin, C. A., Fowler, F. J., Fagerlin, A., & Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J. (2010) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x10377661 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Surfing the internet for health information: an italian survey on use and population choices
Siliquini, R., Ceruti, M., Lovato, E., Bert, F., Bruno, S., Vito, E. D., Liguori, G., Manzoli, L., Messina, G., Minniti, D., et al. (2011) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-11-21 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Adams, S. (2011) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.001 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Reimann, S., & Strech, D. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-332 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Greaves, F., Pape, U. J., Lee, H., Smith, D. M., Darzi, A. W., Majeed, A., & Millett, C. J. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2280 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Googling Ourselves — What Physicians Can Learn from Online Rating Sites
Jain, S. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0903473 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites
Sander, U., Esslinger, A., Maryschok, M., Schöffski, O., & Emmert, M. (2011) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me11-01-0045 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Medical text-based consultations on the Internet: A 4-year study
UMEFJORD, G., SANDSTROM, H., MALKER, H., & PETERSSON, G. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.01.009 · Cited by 56 · cited 1× · see citing works
“With regard to gender, women are more likely to look online for health-related information than men [33-36].”
BackgroundWho is more likely to use doctor-rating websites, and why? A cross-sectional study in London
Galizzi, M. M., Miraldo, M., Stavropoulou, C., Desai, M., Jayatunga, W., Joshi, M., & Parikh, S. (2012) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001493 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
O'Grady, L. A., Witteman, H. O., & Wathen, C. N. (2008) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-58 · Cited by 49 · 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
Deutschsprachige Arztbewertungsportale
Strech, D., & Reimann, S. (2011) · Das Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1297254 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Tanne, J. H. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1408 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Wer findet die besten Ärzte Deutschlands?
Schaefer, C., & Schwarz, S. (2010) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.09.002 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Hennig, S., & Etgeton, S. (2011) · Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD · doi:10.1007/s11623-011-0199-3 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [17]Böcken J Braun B Landmann J Gesundheitsmonitor 2009. Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung. 1st edition 2009 Gütersloh Bertelsmann Stiftung
- [18]Kofahl AC Nickel S Trojan A Böcken J Braun B Landmann J Arztsuche im Internet Gesundheitsmonitor 2009. Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung. 1st edition 2009 Gütersloh Bertelsmann Stiftung 38 58
- [46]Nielsen J Designing Web Usability. 2nd edition 2001 Munich Markt+Technik
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bidmon, S., & Terlutter, R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4127 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey
Brown, J., Ryan, C., & Harris, A. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3589 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
“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.”
Background
- Authors
- Terlutter, R., Bidmon, S., & Röttl, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Klagenfurt (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Terlutter, Ralf
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2014-03-31
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e97
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4004145
- OpenAlex
- W2024559436
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 28.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- physician rating websites, online health information, digital literacy, sociodemographic factors, psychographic factors, health status, chronic disease, trust in online information, perceived usefulness, gender differences, age differences, educational attainment, physician ratings, health information seeking, German patients, patient-provider relationship, health information technology adoption
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Computer Literacy, Data Collection, Female, Germany, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Socioeconomic Factors, Internet, Information Seeking Behavior
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
