Literature DB >> 22742977

Consistently increasing numbers of online ratings of healthcare in England.

Felix Greaves, Christopher Millett.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22742977      PMCID: PMC3415275          DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Internet Res        ISSN: 1438-8871            Impact factor:   5.428


× No keyword cloud information.
In a recent JMIR paper, Gao and colleagues demonstrated the growing number of internet-based ratings of physicians on a commercially-owned website in the USA [1]. In England, in keeping with our National Health Service, we have a government run website that allows patients to rate and comment on their care online in a similar way, but at the level of healthcare provider organisations rather than individuals. The website is called NHS Choices [2]. Gao suggests that their results demonstrate a positive correlation between online ratings and physician quality. We have similarly demonstrated how better online ratings at the organisational level are associated with better clinical outcomes [3], and patient experience measured by surveys [4] in England. In a new analysis to allow comparison with Gao’s results, we looked at the number of ratings of hospitals posted on the NHS Choices website over the period since it started (August 2008) to the end of 2011. There were 20,996 ratings of hospitals over the 40 month period, fewer than in the US. We found a more gradual, linear increase in ratings in England (Figure 1) compared with the accelerating growth in ratings seen on commercial sites in the US [1]. We are not sure why the frequency of ratings is stable in England, but not increasing at the same rate as in the US. This may be because marketing budgets are lower for an English government run service compared to the more commercial advertising approach of US websites, leading to lower awareness of the websites in England. Alternatively, patients in England may be less culturally familiar with the concept of provider choice in healthcare, as the ability to choose between providers has only been introduced relatively recently in the English NHS while it may be a cultural norm in the US. This might result in English patients being less inclined to rate their care. We hope this adds to the work of our American colleagues, and demonstrates that the increasing number of online ratings of healthcare is an international phenomenon, even if England is perhaps at an earlier stage on the curve than the US.
Figure 1

Cumulative number of online ratings of hospitals in England on the NHS Choices website.

Cumulative number of online ratings of hospitals in England on the NHS Choices website.
  3 in total

1.  Associations between Web-based patient ratings and objective measures of hospital quality.

Authors:  Felix Greaves; Utz J Pape; Dominic King; Ara Darzi; Azeem Majeed; Robert M Wachter; Christopher Millett
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-02-13

2.  Associations between Internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study.

Authors:  Felix Greaves; Utz J Pape; Dominic King; Ara Darzi; Azeem Majeed; Robert M Wachter; Christopher Millett
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  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

  3 in total
  23 in total

1.  Comment Topic Evolution on a Cancer Institution's Facebook Page.

Authors:  Chunlei Tang; Li Zhou; Joseph Plasek; Ronen Rozenblum; David Bates
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 2.  Negative online reviews of orthodontists: Content analysis of complaints posted by dissatisfied patients.

Authors:  Adam M Skrypczak; William A Tressel; Sara Ghayour; Roozbeh Khosravi; Douglas S Ramsay
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 3.  Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: a scoping review.

Authors:  Lise M Verhoef; Tom H Van de Belt; Lucien J L P G Engelen; Lisette Schoonhoven; Rudolf B Kool
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  Using patient experiences on Dutch social media to supervise health care services: exploratory study.

Authors:  Tom H van de Belt; Lucien J L P G Engelen; Lise M Verhoef; Marian J A van der Weide; Lisette Schoonhoven; Rudolf B Kool
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  General Practitioners' Concerns About Online Patient Feedback: Findings From a Descriptive Exploratory Qualitative Study in England.

Authors:  Salma Patel; Rebecca Cain; Kevin Neailey; Lucy Hooberman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Patients' ratings of family physician practices on the internet: usage and associations with conventional measures of quality in the English National Health Service.

Authors:  Felix Greaves; Utz J Pape; Henry Lee; Dianna M Smith; Ara Darzi; Azeem Majeed; Christopher Millett
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  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

8.  Internet use frequency and patient-centered care: measuring patient preferences for participation using the health information wants questionnaire.

Authors:  Bo Xie; Mo Wang; Robert Feldman; Le Zhou
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Use of sentiment analysis for capturing patient experience from free-text comments posted online.

Authors:  Felix Greaves; Daniel Ramirez-Cano; Christopher Millett; Ara Darzi; Liam Donaldson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  What explains usage of mobile physician-rating apps? Results from a web-based questionnaire.

Authors:  Sonja Bidmon; Ralf Terlutter; Johanna Röttl
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.