Gender, Soft Skills, and Patient Experience in Online Physician Reviews: A Large-Scale Text Analysis.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. OBJECTIVE:This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. METHODS:A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). RESULTS:Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. CONCLUSIONS:This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients' choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although online physician rating information is popular among Chinese health consumers, the limited number of reviews greatly hampers the effective usage of this information. To date, little has been discussed on the variables that influence online physician rating from the users' perspective. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to investigate the factors associated with the actual behavior and intention of generating online physician rating information in urban China. METHODS:A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted, and the valid responses of 1371 Chinese health consumers were recorded. Using a pilot interview, we analyzed the effects of demographics, health variables, cognitive variables, and technology-related variables on online physician rating information generation. Binary multivariate logistic regression, multiple linear regression, one-way analysis of variance analyses, and independent samples t test were performed to analyze the rating behavior and the intentions of the health consumers. The survey instrument was designed based on the existing literature and the pilot interview. RESULTS:In this survey, 56.7% (778/1371) of the responders used online physician rating information, and 20.9% (287/1371) of the responders rated the physicians on the physician rating website at least once (posters). The actual physician rating behavior was mainly predicted by health-related factors and was significantly associated with seeking web-based physician information (odds ratio [OR] 5.548, 95% CI 3.072-10.017; P<.001), usage of web-based physician service (OR 2.771, 95% CI 1.979-3.879; P<.001), health information-seeking ability (OR 1.138, 95% CI 0.993-1.304; P=.04), serious disease development (OR 2.699, 95% CI 1.889-3.856; P<.001), good medical experience (OR 2.149, 95% CI 1.473-3.135; P<.001), altruism (OR 0.612, 95% CI 0.483-0.774; P<.001), self-efficacy (OR 1.453, 95% CI 1.182-1.787; P<.001), and trust in online physician rating information (OR 1.315, 95% CI 1.089-1.586; P=.004). Some factors influencing the intentions of the posters and nonposters rating the physicians were different, and the rating intention was mainly determined by cognitive and health-related factors. For posters, seeking web-based physician information (?=.486; P=.007), using web-based medical service (?=.420; P=.002), ability to seek health information (?=.193; P=.002), rating habits (?=.105; P=.02), altruism (?=.414; P<.001), self-efficacy (?=.102; P=.06), trust (?=.351; P<.001), and perceived ease of use (?=.275; P<.001) served as significant predictors of the rating intention. For nonposters, ability to seek health information (?=.077; P=.003), chronic disease development (?=.092; P=.06), bad medical experience (?=.047; P=.02), rating habits (?=.085; P<.001), altruism (?=.411; P<.001), self-efficacy (?=.171; P<.001), trust (?=.252; P<.001), and perceived usefulness of rating physicians (?=.109; P<.001) were significantly associated with the rating intention. CONCLUSIONS:We showed that different factors affected the physician rating behavior and rating intention. Health-related variables influenced the physician rating behavior, while cognitive variables were critical in the rating intentions. We have proposed some practical implications for physician rating websites and physicians to promote online physician rating information generation.
Project description:Importance:Women and black physicians encounter workplace challenges because of their gender and race. It is unclear whether these individuals are assessed with lower patient satisfaction or confidence ratings compared with white male physicians. Objective:To examine whether physician gender and race affect participant ratings in scenarios in which physician competence is challenged. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized trial enrolled a geographically diverse sample of 3592 online respondents in the United States who were recruited from 2 crowdsourcing platforms: Amazon Mechanical Turk (n?=?1741) and Lucid (n?=?1851). A 2?×?2 factorial design for the gender and race of simulated physicians was conducted between March 9 and July 25, 2018. Participants were excluded before intervention if they were younger than 18 years, were pregnant, or had a history of cancer or abdominal surgical procedures. Interventions:A clinical vignette was presented to the participant with a picture of the emergency department physician. Participants were randomly assigned to physicians with different gender and race, with 823 assigned to black women, 791 to black men, 828 to white women, and 835 to white men. A contradictory diagnosis from an online symptom checker introduced doubt about the clinical diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures:A composite outcome (range, 0-100, with 0 representing low patient confidence and satisfaction and 100 representing the maximum on the composite scale) measured participant (1) confidence in the physician, (2) satisfaction with care, (3) likelihood to recommend the physician, (4) trust in the physician's diagnosis, and (5) likelihood to request additional tests. Results:Among 3277 adult participants, complete data were available for 3215 (median age, 49 years [range, 18-89 years]; 1667 [52%] female; 2433 [76%] white). No significant differences were observed in participant satisfaction and physician confidence for the white male physician control physicians (mean composite score, 66.13 [95% CI, 64.76-67.51]) compared with white female (mean composite score, 66.50 [95% CI, 65.19-67.82]), black female (mean composite score, 67.36 [95% CI, 66.03-68.69]), and black male (mean composite score, 66.96 [95% CI, 65.55-68.36]) physicians. Machine learning with bayesian additive regression trees revealed no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity as a function of participants' race, gender, racial prejudice, or sexism. Conclusions and Relevance:No significant differences were observed for simulated patients' evaluations of female or black physicians, suggesting that bias in favor of white male physicians is negligible in survey-based measures of patient satisfaction. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04190901.
Project description:Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians.The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review.We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not.Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not.The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nowadays, patients are seeking physician information more frequently via the internet. Physician-rating websites (PRWs) have been recognized as the most convenient way to gain insight and detailed information about specific physicians before receiving consultation. However, little is known about how the information provided on PRWs may affect patients' decisions to seek medical advice. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to examine whether the physicians' online efforts and their reputation have a relationship with patients' choice of physician on PRWs. METHODS:A model, based on social exchange theory, was developed to analyze the factors associated with the number of online patients. A 3-wave data collection exercise, covering 4037 physicians on China's Good Doctor website, was conducted during the months of February, April, and June 2017. Increases in consultation in a 60-day period were used as the dependent variable, whereas 2 series of data were analyzed using linear regression modeling. The fixed-effect model was used to analyze the 3-wave data. RESULTS:The adjusted R2 value in the linear regression models were 0.28 and 0.27, whereas in the fixed-effect model, it was .30. Both the linear regression and fixed-effect models yielded a good fit. A positive effect of physicians' effort on the aggregated number of online patients was identified in all models (R2=0.30 and R2=0.37 in 2 regression models; R2=0.23 in fixed effect model; P<.001). The proxies of physicians' reputations indicated different results, with total number of page views of physicians' homepages (R2=0.43 and R2=0.46; R2=0.16; P<.001) and number of votes received (R2=0.33 and R2=0.27; R2=0.43; P<.001) being seen as positive. Virtual gifts were not significant in all models, whereas thank-you messages were only significant in the fixed-effect model (R2=0.11; P=.02). The effort made by physicians online is positively associated with their aggregated number of patients consulted, whereas the effect of a physician's reputation remains uncertain. The control effect of a physician's title and hospital's level was not significant in all linear regressions. CONCLUSIONS:Both the effort and reputation of physicians online contribute to the increased number of online patients' consultation; however, the influence of a physician's reputation varies. This may imply that physicians' online effort and reputation are critical in attracting patients and that strategic manipulation of physician profiles is worthy of study. Practical insights are also discussed.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent years, the information environment for patients to learn about physician quality is being rapidly changed by Web-based ratings from both commercial and government efforts. However, little is known about how various types of Web-based ratings affect individuals' choice of physicians. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this research was to measure the relative importance of Web-based quality ratings from governmental and commercial agencies on individuals' choice of primary care physicians. METHODS:In a choice-based conjoint experiment conducted on a sample of 1000 Amazon Mechanical Turk users in October 2016, individuals were asked to choose their preferred primary care physician from pairs of physicians with different ratings in clinical and nonclinical aspects of care provided by governmental and commercial agencies. RESULTS:The relative log odds of choosing a physician increases by 1.31 (95% CI 1.26-1.37; P<.001) and 1.32 (95% CI 1.27-1.39; P<.001) units when the government clinical ratings and commercial nonclinical ratings move from 2 to 4 stars, respectively. The relative log odds of choosing a physician increases by 1.12 (95% CI 1.07-1.18; P<.001) units when the commercial clinical ratings move from 2 to 4 stars. The relative log odds of selecting a physician with 4 stars in nonclinical ratings provided by the government is 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P<.001) units higher than a physician with 2 stars in this rating. The log odds of selecting a physician with 4 stars in nonclinical government ratings relative to a physician with 2 stars is 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.33; P<.001) units higher for females compared with males. Similar star increase in nonclinical commercial ratings increases the relative log odds of selecting the physician by female respondents by 0.15 (95% CI 0.04-0.26; P=.006) units. CONCLUSIONS:Individuals perceive nonclinical ratings provided by commercial websites as important as clinical ratings provided by government websites when choosing a primary care physician. There are significant gender differences in how the ratings are used. More research is needed on whether patients are making the best use of different types of ratings, as well as the optimal allocation of resources in improving physician ratings from the government's perspective.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent years, paid online patient-physician interaction has been incorporated into the telemedicine markets. With the development of telemedicine and telemedicine services, online feedback has been widely applied, helping other patients to identify quality services. Recently, in China, a new type of service feedback has been applied to the telemedicine markets, namely, paid feedback. Patients who are satisfied with a physician's online service can buy a virtual gift or give a tip to the physicians. This paid feedback can improve the reliability of service feedback and reduce the proportion of false information because it increases the cost for feedback providers. Paid online feedback can benefit the physicians, such as by providing them with monetary incentives; however, research on the impacts and value of such paid feedback from the physician perspective in the telemedicine markets is scant. To fill this research gap, this study was designed to understand the role of paid feedback by developing a research model based on the theories of signaling and self-determination. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore the effects of free and paid feedback on patients' choice and physicians' behaviors as well as to investigate the substitute relationship between these 2 types of feedback in the telemedicine markets. METHODS:A JAVA software program was used to collect online patient-doctor interaction data over a 6-month period from a popular telemedicine market in China (Good Physician Online). This study drew on a 2-equation panel model to test the hypotheses. Both fixed and random effect models were used to estimate the combined effects of paid feedback and free feedback on patients' choice and physicians' contribution. Finally, the Hausman test was adopted to investigate which model is better to explain our empirical results. RESULTS:The results of this study show that paid feedback has a stronger effect on patients' choice (a5=0.566; t2192=9.160; P<.001) and physicians' contribution (β4=1.332; t2193=11.067; P<.001) in telemedicine markets than free feedback. Moreover, our research also proves that paid feedback and free feedback have a substitute relationship in determining patients' and physicians' behaviors (a6=-0.304; t2191=-5.805; P<.001 and β5=-0.823; t2192=-8.136; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings contribute to the extant literature on service feedback in the telemedicine markets and provide insight for relevant stakeholders into how to design an effective feedback mechanism to improve patients' service experience and physicians' engagement.
Project description:Importance:The Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey is used to measure the patient experience. An understanding of the patient- and physician-related determinants of the patient experience may help identify opportunities to improve health care delivery and physician ratings. Objective:To evaluate the associations between the patient experience as measured by scores on the Press Ganey survey and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional analysis of Press Ganey surveys returned for outpatient visits within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 2014 and 2017 was performed. Participants included adult patient and physician dyads for whom surveys were returned. Data analysis was performed from January to June 2019. Exposures:Patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was receipt of the maximum score for the "likelihood of your recommending this care provider to others" question in the Care Provider domain of the Press Ganey survey. Secondary outcomes included each of the remaining 9 questions in the Care Provider domain. Generalized estimating equations clustering on physicians with exchangeable intracluster correlations and cluster-robust standard errors were used to investigate associations between the outcomes and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance. Results:In total, 117?589 surveys were evaluated, corresponding to 92?238 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [15.6] years; 37?002 men [40.1%]; 75?307 White patients [81.6%]) and 747 unique physicians (mean [SD] age 45.5 [10.6] years; 472 men [63.2%]; 533 White physicians [71.4%]). Compared with racially/ethnically concordant patient-physician dyads, discordance was associated with a lower likelihood of physicians receiving the maximum score (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94; P?<?.001). Black (adjusted OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.78; P?<?.001) and Asian (adjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P?<?.001) patient race were both associated with lower patient experience ratings. Patient-physician gender concordance was not associated with Press Ganey scores (adjusted OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04; P?=?.90). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, higher Press Ganey survey scores were associated with racial/ethnic concordance between patients and their physicians. Efforts to improve physician workforce diversity are imperative. Delivery of health care in a culturally mindful manner between racially/ethnically discordant patient-physician dyads is also essential. Furthermore, Press Ganey scores may differ by a physician's patient demographic mix; thus, care must be taken when publicly reporting or using Press Ganey scores to evaluate physicians on an individual level.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Online reputation management (ORM) is an emerging practice strategy that emphasizes the systematic and proactive monitoring of online reviews relating to one's professional reputation. OBJECTIVE:We developed this survey project to assess whether radiation oncologists are aware of ORM and how it is utilized in their practices. We hypothesized that ORM is largely unknown by most practicing radiation oncologists and that little time is spent actively managing their reputations. METHODS:An online survey was submitted to 1222 radiation oncologists using the Qualtrics research platform. Physician emails were gathered from the American Society for Radiation Oncology member directory. A total of 85 physicians initiated the survey, whereas 76 physicians completed more than or equal to 94% (15/16) of the survey questions and were subsequently used in our analyses. The survey consisted of 15 questions querying practice demographics, patient satisfaction determination, ORM understanding, and activities to address ORM and 1 question for physicians to opt-in to a US $50 Amazon gift card raffle. The survey data were summarized using a frequency table, and data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS:We calculated a 7% (85/1222) response rate for our survey, with a completion rate of 89% (76/85). A majority of respondents (97%, 74/76) endorsed being somewhat or strongly concerned about patient satisfaction (P<.001). However, 58% (44/76) of respondents reported spending 0 hours per week reviewing or managing their online reputation and 39% (30/76) reported spending less than 1 hour per week (P<.001). A majority of physicians (58%, 44/76) endorsed no familiarity with ORM (P<.001) and 70% (53/76) did not actively manage their online reputation (P<.001). Although 83% (63/76) of respondents strongly or somewhat believed that patients read online reviews (P<.001), 57% (43/76) of respondents did not check their online reviews (P=.25) and 80% (61/76) endorsed never responding to online reviews (P<.001). Moreover, 58% (44/76) of the respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea of managing their online reputation going forward (P=.001). In addition, 11 out of the 28 pairs of questions asked in our correlation studies reached statistical significance. Degree of concern for patient satisfaction and the notion of managing one's ORM going forward were the 2 most frequently correlated topics of statistical significance in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS:ORM is presently under-recognized in radiation oncology. Although most practitioners are concerned about patient satisfaction, little effort is directed toward the internet on this matter. ORM offers an area of practice improvement for many practicing radiation oncologists.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:A recently published simulation study suggested that women are inferior leaders of cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts. The aim of this study was to compare female and male code leaders in regard to cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in a real-world clinical setting. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort review. SETTING:Two academic, urban hospitals in San Diego, California. SUBJECTS:One-thousand eighty-two adult inpatients who suffered cardiac arrest and underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We analyzed whether physician code leader gender was independently associated with sustained return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge and with markers of quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Of all arrests, 327 (30.1%) were run by female physician code leaders with 251 (76.8%) obtaining return of spontaneous circulation, and 122 (37.3%) surviving to discharge. Male physicians ran 757 codes obtaining return of spontaneous circulation in 543 (71.7%) with 226 (29.9%) surviving to discharge. When adjusting for variables, female physician code leader gender was independently associated with a higher likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.85; p = 0.049) and survival to discharge (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.15-2.02; p < 0.01). Additionally, the odds ratio for survival to discharge was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.13-2.34; p < 0.01) for female physicians with a female code nurse when compared with male physician code leaders paired with a female code nurse. Gender of code leader was not associated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality. CONCLUSIONS:In contrast to data derived from a simulated setting with medical students, real life female physician leadership of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not associated with inferior outcomes. Appropriately, trained physicians can lead high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation irrespective of gender.
Project description:BACKGROUND:China has witnessed a surge in violence against medical personnel, including widely reported incidents of violent abuse, riots, attacks, and protests in hospitals, but little is known about the impact of gender differences on the workplace violence against physicians of obstetrics and gynecology. The aim of this study was to analyse gender differences in workplace violence against physicians of obstetrics and gynecology in China. METHODS:Printed questionnaires were sent to participants of a national congress of obstetricians and gynecologists. The questionnaire consisted of items relevant to epidemiologic characteristics, workplace violence experienced in the past 12 months, participants' attitudes toward violence and physician-patient relationship. Data from female and male physicians were compared in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS:We sent out 1,425 questionnaires, and 1,300 (91.2%) physicians responded. Among 1,247 participants with specified gender, female and male physicians consisted of 162 (13.0%) and 1,085 (87.0%), respectively. Over the past 12 months, about two-thirds of these physicians suffered verbal abuse in the workplace, gender difference aside. After adjustment for education status, working hospital and subspecialty, male physicians had suffered more physical assaults than female colleagues (18.8% vs. 10.5%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.7), most attacks without apparent physical injuries (adjusted OR 2.3, 95% CI, 1.4-3.7). Male physicians also suffered more sexual assaults than female colleagues (5.0% vs. 1.3%, adjusted OR 4.8, 95% CI, 1.8-13.3), nearly all of verbal harassment. There were only two sexual attacks on female physicians, and no rapes occurred. Although almost all physicians regarded the current circumstance as "unhealthy and stressful", more than half of them would take various active initiatives to create and maintain healthy and friendly physician-patient relationships. CONCLUSION:Male physicians of obstetrics and gynecology in China suffered the same number of verbal abuse incidents but more physical and sexual assaults than their female colleagues. Both genders had similar opinions about causes, consequences and management about work violence against physicians, and had the same pessimistic perspectives but innovative wishes for the physician-patient relationship.