UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Deutschsprachige Arztbewertungsportale


Strech, D; Reimann, S (2012). Deutschsprachige Arztbewertungsportale. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der �rzte des , 74(08/09):502-503.

Abstract

Background: In physician rating sites (PRS), patients are able to share their experiences and indicate their satisfaction in qualitative and quantita­tive form. This information should support other patients in the search for a suitable physician and can serve as a form of anonymous feedback for physicians. Medical association representatives are often concerned that such reviews primarily aim at defamation. Furthermore, there are various aspects of medical work that cannot be adequately evaluated solely through the patients. In the United States of America, the majority of such previous reviews were shown to be positive. It has yet to be examined in the German and English speaking regions where distinct criteria presently allow patients to express their satisfaction through PRS.
Method: Based on the systematic review of patient satisfaction questionnaires, a set of criteria was created that represents the dimensions of patient satisfaction. German and English language physician rating sites were systematically researched using the Internet search machines “Google“ and “Yahoo“. The identified PRS were then evaluated with the help of the aforemen­tioned set of criteria. In order to survey the tendency of the amount and content of reviews, a stratified sample of members of the Panel Doctor's Association in Hamburg and Thuringia was generated. A total of 298 randomly selected physicians were searched for in 6 German-language PRS regarding potential reviews.
Results: Some of the key features of the relation­ship between physicians and patients, such as medical competence, information, and consultation, were surveyed by more than three-fourths of the German-speaking PRS; however, other features such as communication were only sampled by one. As opposed to formal points of view, office facilities and organisation were assessed by all PRS. General reviews on treatment success and satisfaction were displayed in more than half of the reviews. Between 75% and 98% of physicians from the random sampling could be found in one of the 6 German language physician rating sites. Of the randomly sampled physicians, between 3% and 28% were evaluated by at least one patient. On average, the ratings for the total sample (on a scale of 1=good to 3=poor) ranged from 1.1 to 1.5, which clearly represents a positive trend. There were no differences found in terms of quantity and quality of ratings, or concerning the identifiability of physicians in the cases of Thuringia and Hamburg.
Conclusion: The various PRS vary significantly in the selection and explanation of criteria for the evaluation of medical quality and, respectively, patient satisfaction. The specific selection and explanation of certain evaluation criteria could have a lasting effect on the understanding of physician quality and patient self-conception in the case of increased utilisation of PRS. The lack of standards for medical evaluation for PRS as well as poorly differentiated reviews, since reviews were usually positive, generally speak for the need for full text comments on PRS. This would enable peer-to-peer communication amongst users, especially regarding the practical relevance of evaluation criteria. Through this interaction between PRS users, user-oriented standards can be established and the advanced use of physician rating sites can be promoted.

Abstract

Background: In physician rating sites (PRS), patients are able to share their experiences and indicate their satisfaction in qualitative and quantita­tive form. This information should support other patients in the search for a suitable physician and can serve as a form of anonymous feedback for physicians. Medical association representatives are often concerned that such reviews primarily aim at defamation. Furthermore, there are various aspects of medical work that cannot be adequately evaluated solely through the patients. In the United States of America, the majority of such previous reviews were shown to be positive. It has yet to be examined in the German and English speaking regions where distinct criteria presently allow patients to express their satisfaction through PRS.
Method: Based on the systematic review of patient satisfaction questionnaires, a set of criteria was created that represents the dimensions of patient satisfaction. German and English language physician rating sites were systematically researched using the Internet search machines “Google“ and “Yahoo“. The identified PRS were then evaluated with the help of the aforemen­tioned set of criteria. In order to survey the tendency of the amount and content of reviews, a stratified sample of members of the Panel Doctor's Association in Hamburg and Thuringia was generated. A total of 298 randomly selected physicians were searched for in 6 German-language PRS regarding potential reviews.
Results: Some of the key features of the relation­ship between physicians and patients, such as medical competence, information, and consultation, were surveyed by more than three-fourths of the German-speaking PRS; however, other features such as communication were only sampled by one. As opposed to formal points of view, office facilities and organisation were assessed by all PRS. General reviews on treatment success and satisfaction were displayed in more than half of the reviews. Between 75% and 98% of physicians from the random sampling could be found in one of the 6 German language physician rating sites. Of the randomly sampled physicians, between 3% and 28% were evaluated by at least one patient. On average, the ratings for the total sample (on a scale of 1=good to 3=poor) ranged from 1.1 to 1.5, which clearly represents a positive trend. There were no differences found in terms of quantity and quality of ratings, or concerning the identifiability of physicians in the cases of Thuringia and Hamburg.
Conclusion: The various PRS vary significantly in the selection and explanation of criteria for the evaluation of medical quality and, respectively, patient satisfaction. The specific selection and explanation of certain evaluation criteria could have a lasting effect on the understanding of physician quality and patient self-conception in the case of increased utilisation of PRS. The lack of standards for medical evaluation for PRS as well as poorly differentiated reviews, since reviews were usually positive, generally speak for the need for full text comments on PRS. This would enable peer-to-peer communication amongst users, especially regarding the practical relevance of evaluation criteria. Through this interaction between PRS users, user-oriented standards can be established and the advanced use of physician rating sites can be promoted.

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
6 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 11 Feb 2013
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:German
Date:2012
Deposited On:11 Feb 2013 16:23
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 16:23
Publisher:Georg Thieme Verlag
ISSN:0941-3790
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1297254
Related URLs:https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejournals/issue/10.1055/s-002-23658 (Publisher)

Download

[img]
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 426kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations