(155) IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS IMPACTING ONLINE PHYSICIAN REVIEWS

Abstract Introduction Physician review websites offer patients insight to their potential care teams when seeking a new provider. A firm understanding of the factors which patients deem important when assigning these ratings may allow sexual medicine providers an opportunity to improve patient satisfaction. Objective To analyze the impact of commonly cited positive and negative qualities of a sexual medicine providers’ practice on online provider ratings. Methods Online ratings and reviews through Healthgrade.com and Vitals.com were collected for all physicians listed in the SMSNA Healthcare Provider Directory. Physicians were included if they had received more than 10 ratings and 5 written reviews. The frequency for which specific positive and negative descriptors were included in written reviews was compared to a provider’s average online rating using Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney tests and non-parametric correlation. Factors which were significantly associated with changes in average ratings were then tested using multiple regression. Results Of 331 SMSNA providers, 145 (43.8%) met the inclusion criteria, including 129 male and 16 female providers, receiving an average of 57.0 ratings and 22.6 written reviews each. The average rating was 3.96/5. Factors significantly associated with worsened online ratings included physicians appearing rude or uncaring (-47.0%, p = 0.013), poor clinic staff or nurse quality (-39.2%, p = 0.000), lack of email or phone availability (-37.2%, p = 0.001), poor facilities appearance (-29.5%, p = 0.045), and complications following procedures (-22.7%, p = 0.028). No factors were significantly associated with improved rating scores (Table 1). Conclusions Physicians can gain insight to the patient perspective through a careful review of common trends in online physician reviews. On an analysis of reviews for SMSNA providers, multiple factors which remain in the provider’s control, including appearing caring to patients, quality of clinic staff or nurses, and availability by phone or email, appeared to significantly impact online ratings. By focusing on these factors, sexual medicine providers may be able to maintain positive online reviews while offsetting the impact of factors that may remain outside of their control, including the quality of clinic or hospital facilities and complications following procedures. Despite frequent emphasis, wait times and cost of care did not appear to impact overall ratings. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae167.152
Primary Topic
Social Media in Health Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

(155) IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS IMPACTING ONLINE PHYSICIAN REVIEWS

Joel Miller, Elia Abou Chawareb, Zeinab Magdy Mahmoud Ahmed, Faysal A. Yafi et al.
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Social Media in Health Education
article

(155) IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS IMPACTING ONLINE PHYSICIAN REVIEWS

Joel Miller, Elia Abou Chawareb, Zeinab Magdy Mahmoud Ahmed, Faysal A. Yafi, Mahmoud Hammad, G Gryzinski
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Physician review websites offer patients insight to their potential care teams when seeking a new provider. A firm understanding of the factors which patients deem important when assigning these ratings may allow sexual medicine providers an opportunity to improve patient satisfaction. Objective To analyze the impact of commonly cited positive and negative qualities of a sexual medicine providers’ practice on online provider ratings. Methods Online ratings and reviews through Healthgrade.com and Vitals.com were collected for all physicians listed in the SMSNA Healthcare Provider Directory. Physicians were included if they had received more than 10 ratings and 5 written reviews. The frequency for which specific positive and negative descriptors were included in written reviews was compared to a provider’s average online rating using Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney tests and non-parametric correlation. Factors which were significantly associated with changes in average ratings were then tested using multiple regression. Results Of 331 SMSNA providers, 145 (43.8%) met the inclusion criteria, including 129 male and 16 female providers, receiving an average of 57.0 ratings and 22.6 written reviews each. The average rating was 3.96/5. Factors significantly associated with worsened online ratings included physicians appearing rude or uncaring (-47.0%, p = 0.013), poor clinic staff or nurse quality (-39.2%, p = 0.000), lack of email or phone availability (-37.2%, p = 0.001), poor facilities appearance (-29.5%, p = 0.045), and complications following procedures (-22.7%, p = 0.028). No factors were significantly associated with improved rating scores (Table 1). Conclusions Physicians can gain insight to the patient perspective through a careful review of common trends in online physician reviews. On an analysis of reviews for SMSNA providers, multiple factors which remain in the provider’s control, including appearing caring to patients, quality of clinic staff or nurses, and availability by phone or email, appeared to significantly impact online ratings. By focusing on these factors, sexual medicine providers may be able to maintain positive online reviews while offsetting the impact of factors that may remain outside of their control, including the quality of clinic or hospital facilities and complications following procedures. Despite frequent emphasis, wait times and cost of care did not appear to impact overall ratings. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast.

The Journal of Sexual MedicineVol. 21(Supplement_7)
University of California, Irvine (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Social Media in Health Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.