Literature DB >> 26606326

Evaluation of Dermatology Practice Online Reviews: Lessons From Qualitative Analysis.

Robert J Smith1, Jules B Lipoff2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Patient satisfaction is an increasingly important component of health care quality measures. Online reviews of physicians represent a promising platform for capturing patient perspectives of care.
OBJECTIVE: To identify qualitative themes associated with patient reviews of dermatologic care on consumer reporting websites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative analysis was conducted of patient-generated reviews of dermatology practices on 2 consumer review platforms. Yelp is an online consumer portal for users to review their experience with local businesses; ZocDoc is an online patient-scheduling portal that provides opportunity for patients to write reviews of physician practices. A total of 518 reviews from 45 dermatology practices on Yelp and 4921 reviews from 45 dermatology providers on ZocDoc were collected from 3 geographically diverse cities: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Houston, Texas; and Seattle, Washington. The study was conducted from January 15 to July 15, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reviews were separated into high-scoring and low-scoring groups. An inductive qualitative method was used to code and identify key themes associated with positive and negative patient experiences. Analysis was completed upon reaching thematic saturation.
RESULTS: Reported as mean (95% CI), the overall Yelp score for the 45 selected practices was 3.46 of 5 stars (3.17-3.75) and overall ZocDoc score for the 45 selected practices was 4.72 of 5 stars (4.47-4.80). The proportion of individual reviews giving a score of 5.0 was significantly higher on ZocDoc (3986 [81.0%]) than on Yelp (229 [44.2%]) (P < .001). Qualitative themes centered on characteristics of the physician and the practice. Themes that emerged from the high-scoring and low-scoring reviews were similar in content but opposite in valence. Physician-specific themes included temperament, knowledge and competency, physical examination, communication abilities, and mindfulness of cost. Practice-specific themes included scheduling, staff temperament, office cleanliness, waiting room, and insurance. Patients appreciated physicians who are kind, respectful, and thorough with the physical examination; empathetic about the emotional difficulty of skin disease; and cognizant of cost. Negative experiences were frequently affected by considerations outside of the physician-patient interaction, such as curt interactions with staff, difficulty with scheduling, practice cleanliness, and insurance problems. Patients reported relying on consumer websites to identify dermatology providers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Online consumer review websites are designed to facilitate instantaneous and public communication among patients. These platforms provide elaborate and timely data for dermatologists to garner insight into their patients' experiences. The themes identified in this study are consistent with past satisfaction studies and may aid dermatologists in optimizing the patient care experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26606326     DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.3950

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Dermatol        ISSN: 2168-6068            Impact factor:   10.282


  10 in total

1.  Negative and Positive Online Patient Reviews of Physicians-1 vs 5 Stars.

Authors:  Nima L Shemirani; Jeffrey Castrillon
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

2.  How Do Waterpipe Smoking Establishments Attract Smokers? Implications for Policy.

Authors:  Taghrid Asfar; Ziyad Ben Taleb; Olatokunbo Osibogun; Estefania C Ruano-Herreria; Danielle Sierra; Kenneth D Ward; Ramzi G Salloum; Wasim Maziak
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 2.164

3.  Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.

Authors:  Joseph C Brinkman; Jordan R Pollock; Jaymeson R Arthur; Jacob Smith; Keldon Lin; Michael S Chang
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2022-05-21

Review 4.  Social Media and Ethical Challenges for the Dermatologist.

Authors:  Michelle Militello; Ronald A Yang; Jaclyn B Anderson; Mindy D Szeto; Colby L Presley; Melissa R Laughter
Journal:  Curr Dermatol Rep       Date:  2021-09-13

5.  Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Nursing Home Physicians: Insight from Yelp Reviews, 2009-2018.

Authors:  Kira L Ryskina; Hannah Wang; Kierra A Foley; Raina M Merchant
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Automatic Classification of Online Doctor Reviews: Evaluation of Text Classifier Algorithms.

Authors:  Ryan Rivas; Niloofar Montazeri; Nhat Xt Le; Vagelis Hristidis
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Characterizing extremely negative reviews of total joint arthroplasty practices and surgeons on yelp.com.

Authors:  Jaymeson R Arthur; David Etzioni; Adam J Schwartz
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-04-10

8.  What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.

Authors:  Y Alicia Hong; Chen Liang; Tiffany A Radcliff; Lisa T Wigfall; Richard L Street
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 9.  [Advertising or information in ophthalmology? : Scientific evaluation of a YouTube sample].

Authors:  Kilian Schrenk; Ramin Khoramnia; Nicolas Feltgen; Werner Bachmann; Focke Ziemssen; Jens Martin Rohrbach; Spyridon Dimopoulos
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.059

10.  Patient Satisfaction of General Dermatology Providers: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of 38,008 Online Reviews.

Authors:  Dawn Queen; Megan H Trager; Weijia Fan; Faramarz H Samie
Journal:  JID Innov       Date:  2021-08-19
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.