Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients may express views about their orthodontic care by posting publicly available reviews on the Internet. This study analyzed online reviews of orthodontists with an emphasis on the types and frequency of complaints expressed in negative reviews.

Methods

A random sample of 10.6% of the American Association of Orthodontists membership was evaluated to identify members practicing in a North American office that is limited to orthodontics and has an online presence. Information regarding those orthodontists and their offices was collected. For offices with Google and/or Yelp reviews, all negative (1- or 2-star) reviews were saved for content analysis. If an office posted a response to a negative review, those responses were also collected for analysis.

Results

Of the 807 eligible orthodontists, 92.4% had reviews on Google and/or Yelp. Average ratings of orthodontists were very positive (ie, 4- and 5-star reviews constituted >97% of Google reviews and >88% of Yelp reviews), yielding an average orthodontist rating of 4.72 on Google and 4.42 on Yelp. However, approximately half of those orthodontists (50.9%) also had at least 1 negative review. The 3 most frequently mentioned categories of complaints were regarding quality of care and/or service, interpersonal interactions, and money and/or financial issues. An analysis of the specific kinds of complaints is described. Orthodontists posting responses to negative reviews had significantly better average ratings than those who did not, but this association does not demonstrate a causal relationship.

Conclusions

Understanding the complaints orthodontic patients express in online reviews may suggest strategies to improve patient satisfaction and an orthodontist's online reputation.

SUBMITTER: Skrypczak AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7408296 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Skrypczak Adam M AM Tressel William A WA Ghayour Sara S Khosravi Roozbeh R Ramsay Douglas S DS

American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 20200801 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients may express views about their orthodontic care by posting publicly available reviews on the Internet. This study analyzed online reviews of orthodontists with an emphasis on the types and frequency of complaints expressed in negative reviews.<h4>Methods</h4>A random sample of 10.6% of the American Association of Orthodontists membership was evaluated to identify members practicing in a North American office that is limited to orthodontics and has an online presence. ...[more]

PMID: 32746975

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults who have difficulty moving around are commonly advised to adopt mobility-assistive devices to prevent injuries. However, limited evidence exists on the safety of these devices. Existing data sources such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System tend to focus on injury description rather than the underlying context, thus providing little to no actionable information regarding the safety of these devices. Although online reviews are often used by consumers to assess the safety of products, prior studies have not explored consumer-reported injuries and safety concerns within online reviews of mobility-assistive devices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate injury types and contexts stemming from the use of mobility-assistive devices, as reported by older adults or their caregivers in online reviews. It not only identified injury severities and mobility-assistive device failure pathways but also shed light on the development of safety information and protocols for these products.MethodsReviews concerning assistive devices were extracted from the "assistive aid" categories, which are typically intended for older adult use, on Amazon's US website. The extracted reviews were filtered so that only those pertaining to mobility-assistive devices (canes, gait or transfer belts, ramps, walkers or rollators, and wheelchairs or transport chairs) were retained. We conducted large-scale content analysis of these 48,886 retained reviews by coding them according to injury type (no injury, potential future injury, minor injury, and major injury) and injury pathway (device critical component breakage or decoupling; unintended movement; instability; poor, uneven surface handling; and trip hazards). Coding efforts were carried out across 2 separate phases in which the team manually verified all instances coded as minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury and established interrater reliability to validate coding efforts.ResultsThe content analysis provided a better understanding of the contexts and conditions leading to user injury, as well as the severity of injuries associated with these mobility-assistive devices. Injury pathways-device critical component failures; unintended device movement; poor, uneven surface handling; instability; and trip hazards-were identified for 5 product types (canes, gait and transfer belts, ramps, walkers and rollators, and wheelchairs and transport chairs). Outcomes were normalized per 10,000 posting counts (online reviews) mentioning minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury by product category. Overall, per 10,000 reviews, 240 (2.4%) described mobility-assistive equipment-related user injuries, whereas 2318 (23.18%) revealed potential future injuries.ConclusionsThis study highlights mobility-assistive device injury contexts and severities, suggesting that consumers who posted online reviews attribute most serious injuries to a defective item, rather than user misuse. It implies that many mobility-assistive device injuries may be preventable through patient and caregiver education on how to evaluate new and existing equipment for risk of potential future injury.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Snapchat has seen one of the most rapid, and unprecedented, growths in the history of social networking sites and social media with 3 billion Snapchats sent daily. In 2015, Snapchat introduced a new feature, Snapchat Discover, providing a unique way for publishers, such as magazines, to connect their content to Snapchat users. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate qualitatively the health-related content distributed among male-focused and female-focused Discover channels and to determine whether differences exist between the content posted to these channels. METHODS:Magazine Discover channels with male and female target audiences were identified based on the magazine's claimed audience and a search of Snapchat Discover's magazine publishers, resulting in the selection of two male-focused and two female-focused channels. Stories were collected daily from each of the selected channels during a 4-week period. Using the constant comparative method, 406 Discover stories were collected and analyzed. RESULTS:Differences in health content coverage existed between male- and female-focused channels. General health stories from male channels comprised 7.5% (10/134) of total stories compared with 22.8% (62/272) for female channels. Sexual health stories from male channels comprised 3.0% (4/134) of total stories compared with 18.8% (51/272) for female channels. Moreover, female-focused channels' content was more comprehensive. Female audiences were portrayed as being health information seekers, concerned with sexual health and male satisfaction, primarily responsible for contraception and pregnancy prevention, and less informed about sex. Male audiences were portrayed as being less likely to seek health information, obsessed with and driven by sex, and less concerned with sexual health. CONCLUSIONS:Understanding the content shared to social media is important, especially when considering the implications content may have for behavior. In terms of content, these findings suggest Discover channels appear to promote gender stereotypes and norms for health and sexual health through the information posted.

Project description:Natural Horsemanship is popular among many amateur and professional trainers and as such, has been the subject of recent scientific enquiry. One method commonly adopted by Natural Horsemanship (NH) trainers is that of round pen training (RPT). RPT sessions are usually split into a series of bouts; each including two phases: chasing/flight and chasing offset/flight offset. However, NH training styles are heterogeneous. This study investigated online videos of RPT to explore the characteristics of RPT sessions and test for differences in techniques and outcomes between amateurs and professionals (the latter being defined as those with accompanying online materials that promote clinics, merchandise or a service to the public). From more than 300 candidate videos, we selected sample files for individual amateur (n = 24) and professional (n = 21) trainers. Inclusion criteria were: training at liberty in a Round Pen; more than one bout and good quality video. Sessions or portions of sessions were excluded if the trainer attached equipment, such as a lunge line, directly to the horse or the horse was saddled, mounted or ridden. The number of bouts and duration of each chasing and non-chasing phase were recorded, and the duration of each RPT session was calculated. General weighted regression analysis revealed that, when compared with amateurs, professionals showed fewer arm movements per bout (p<0.05). Poisson regression analysis showed that professionals spent more time looking up at their horses, when transitioning between gaits, than amateurs did (p<0.05). The probability of horses following the trainer was not significantly associated with amount of chasing, regardless of category. Given that, according to some practitioners, the following response is a goal of RPT, this result may prompt caution in those inclined to give chase. The horses handled by professionals showed fewer conflict behaviours (e.g. kicking, biting, stomping, head-tossing, defecating, bucking and attempting to escape), and fewer oral and head movements (e.g. head-lowering, licking and chewing) than those horses handled by amateurs Overall, these findings highlight the need for selectivity when using the internet as an educational source and the importance of trainer skill and excellent timing when using negative reinforcement in horse training.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of online medical services. Although some researchers have investigated how numerical ratings affect consumer choice, limited studies have focused on the effect of negative reviews that most concern physicians.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate how negative review features, including proportion (low/high), claim type (evaluative/factual), and physician response (absence/presence), influence consumers' physician evaluation process under conditions in which a physician's overall rating is high.MethodsUsing a 2×2×2 between-subject decision-controlled experiment, this study examined participants' judgment on physicians with different textual reviews. Collected data were analyzed using the t test and partial least squares-structural equation modeling.ResultsNegative reviews decreased consumers' physician selection intention. The negative review proportion (β=-0.371, P<.001) and claim type (β=-0.343, P<.001) had a greater effect on consumers' physician selection intention compared to the physician response (β=0.194, P<.001). A high negative review proportion, factual negative reviews, and the absence of a physician response significantly reduced consumers' physician selection intention compared to their counterparts. Consumers' locus attributions on the negative reviews affected their evaluation process. Physician attribution mediated the effects of review proportion (β=-0.150, P<.001), review claim type (β=-0.068, P=.01), and physician response (β=0.167, P<.001) on consumer choice. Reviewer attribution also mediated the effects of review proportion (β=-0.071, P<.001), review claim type (β=-0.025, P=.01), and physician response (β=0.096, P<.001) on consumer choice. The moderating effects of the physician response on the relationship between review proportion and physician attribution (β=-0.185, P<.001), review proportion and reviewer attribution (β=-0.110, P<.001), claim type and physician attribution (β=-0.123, P=.003), and claim type and reviewer attribution (β=-0.074, P=.04) were all significant.ConclusionsNegative review features and the physician response significantly influence consumer choice through the causal attribution to physicians and reviewers. Physician attribution has a greater effect on consumers' physician selection intention than reviewer attribution does. The presence of a physician response decreases the influence of negative reviews through direct and moderating effects. We propose some practical implications for physicians, health care providers, and online medical service platforms.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients' choice of health care providers.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research.MethodsA major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables.ResultsA total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients' comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation.ConclusionsPORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C).

Dataset Information

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

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets