OBJECTIVE: To describe the factors affecting patients' selection of a urologist, and the utilization of the Internet and social media. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All new patients presenting to a single-institution for evaluation were invited to complete an anonymous 26-item questionnaire between April 2018 and October 2018, including demographic information, use of Internet and social media resources, and relative importance of factors when selecting a urologist. Descriptive statistics were reported, and a stratified analysis was performed for age, gender, and education. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients responded. More than half (53%) of patients searched their medical condition prior to presentation. When stratified by age, younger patients were 3 times as likely to utilize Internet resources (Group 1 vs Group 2; OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.5-7.2, P <.01). Few patients utilized Facebook (7%) or Twitter (1%). The 3 most important surveyed urologist selection factors included hospital reputation (4.3 ± 1.0), in-network providers (4.0 ± 1.3), and appointment availability (3.9 ± 1.0). The 3 least important included medical school attended (2.7 ± 1.3), urologist on social media (1.9 ± 1.2), and TV, radio, and/or billboard advertisements (1.7 ± 1.3). CONCLUSION: This study suggests a significant proportion of patients search the Internet regarding their medical condition prior to presenting to clinic. Further, younger patients utilize this methodology significantly more than the senior population. Important factors when selecting a urologist may be driven by a hospital's reputation, in addition to scheduling convenience.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the factors affecting patients' selection of a urologist, and the utilization of the Internet and social media. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All new patients presenting to a single-institution for evaluation were invited to complete an anonymous 26-item questionnaire between April 2018 and October 2018, including demographic information, use of Internet and social media resources, and relative importance of factors when selecting a urologist. Descriptive statistics were reported, and a stratified analysis was performed for age, gender, and education. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients responded. More than half (53%) of patients searched their medical condition prior to presentation. When stratified by age, younger patients were 3 times as likely to utilize Internet resources (Group 1 vs Group 2; OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.5-7.2, P <.01). Few patients utilized Facebook (7%) or Twitter (1%). The 3 most important surveyed urologist selection factors included hospital reputation (4.3 ± 1.0), in-network providers (4.0 ± 1.3), and appointment availability (3.9 ± 1.0). The 3 least important included medical school attended (2.7 ± 1.3), urologist on social media (1.9 ± 1.2), and TV, radio, and/or billboard advertisements (1.7 ± 1.3). CONCLUSION: This study suggests a significant proportion of patients search the Internet regarding their medical condition prior to presenting to clinic. Further, younger patients utilize this methodology significantly more than the senior population. Important factors when selecting a urologist may be driven by a hospital's reputation, in addition to scheduling convenience.