Literature DB >> 21138579

The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English- and German-language sites.

Swantje Reimann1, Daniel Strech.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information on patient experience and satisfaction with individual physicians could play an important role for performance measures, improved health care and health literacy. Physician rating sites (PRSs) bear the potential to be a widely available source for this kind of information. However, patient experience and satisfaction are complex constructs operationalized by multiple dimensions. The way in which PRSs allow users to express and rate patient experience and satisfaction could likely influence the image of doctors in society and the self-understanding of both doctors and patients. This study examines the extent to which PRSs currently represent the constructs of patient experience and satisfaction.
METHODS: First, a systematic review of research instruments for measuring patient experience and satisfaction was conducted. The content of these instruments was analyzed qualitatively to create a comprehensive set of dimensions for patient experience and patient satisfaction. Second, PRSs were searched for systematically in English-language and German-language search engines of Google and Yahoo. Finally, we classified every structured question asked by the different PRS using the set of dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction.
RESULTS: The qualitative content analysis of the measurement instruments produced 13 dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction. We identified a total of 21 PRSs. No PRSs represented all 13 dimensions of patient satisfaction and experience with its structured questions. The 3 most trafficked English-language PRS represent between 5 and 6 dimensions and the 3 most trafficked German language PRSs between 8 and 11 dimensions The dimensions for patient experience and satisfaction most frequently represented in PRSs included diversely operationalized ones such as professional competence and doctor-patient relationship/support. However, other less complex but nevertheless important dimensions such as communication skills and information/advice were rarely represented, especially in English-language PRSs.
CONCLUSIONS: Concerning the potential impact of PRSs on health systems, further research is needed to show which of the current operationalizations of patient experience and satisfaction presented in our study are establishing themselves in PRSs. Independently of this factual development, the question also arises whether and to what extent health policy can and should influence the operationalization of patient experience and satisfaction in PRSs. Here, the challenge would be to produce a set of dimensions capable of consensus from among the wide range of operationalizations found by this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21138579      PMCID: PMC3017530          DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-332

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res        ISSN: 1472-6963            Impact factor:   2.655


  35 in total

1.  Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physicians' charter.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-02-09       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  The General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS): tests of data quality and measurement properties.

Authors:  J Ramsay; J L Campbell; S Schroter; J Green; M Roland
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.267

3.  Patients' experiences and satisfaction with health care: results of a questionnaire study of specific aspects of care.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; A Coulter; S Bruster; N Richards; T Chandola
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-12

4.  The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  How does the quality of care compare in five countries?

Authors:  Peter S Hussey; Gerard F Anderson; Robin Osborn; Colin Feek; Vivienne McLaughlin; John Millar; Arnold Epstein
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 6.  Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions.

Authors:  Gunther Eysenbach; John Powell; Marina Englesakis; Carlos Rizo; Anita Stern
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-15

7.  Validation of a questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with general practitioner services.

Authors:  S Grogan; M Conner; P Norman; D Willits; I Porter
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

8.  A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome.

Authors:  S Steine; A Finset; E Laerum
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.267

9.  The 'Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale' (MISS-21) adapted for British general practice.

Authors:  Richard Meakin; John Weinman
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.267

10.  A patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in primary care: development and psychometric evaluation.

Authors:  Christina M Van der Feltz-Cornelis; Patricia Van Oppen; Harm W J Van Marwijk; Edwin De Beurs; Richard Van Dyck
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.238

View more
  29 in total

1.  Does experience matter? A meta-analysis of physician rating websites of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Authors:  R A Jack; M B Burn; P C McCulloch; S R Liberman; K E Varner; J D Harris
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-08-29

2.  Influence of physician evaluation portals on orthodontist selection by patients.

Authors:  Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich; Matthias Wurbs; Ali Modabber; Michael Wolf; Frank Huber; Ulrike Fritz
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.

Authors:  Bassam Kadry; Larry F Chu; Bayan Kadry; Danya Gammas; Alex Macario
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  Ethical principles for physician rating sites.

Authors:  Daniel Strech
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.

Authors:  Guodong Gordon Gao; Jeffrey S McCullough; Ritu Agarwal; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 6.  Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review.

Authors:  Martin Emmert; Uwe Sander; Frank Pisch
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 7.  Popularity of internet physician rating sites and their apparent influence on patients' choices of physicians.

Authors:  Christopher M Burkle; Mark T Keegan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites.

Authors:  Martin Emmert; Thomas Adelhardt; Uwe Sander; Veit Wambach; Jörg Lindenthal
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Long-term doctor-patient relationships: patient perspective from online reviews.

Authors:  Alissa Detz; Andrea López; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Cross-sectional analysis of online patient reviews of infertility care providers.

Authors:  Ricci Allen; Shruti Agarwal; Mark P Trolice
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-07-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.