↓ Skip to main content

Physician and Patient Views on Public Physician Rating Websites: A Cross-Sectional Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Physician and Patient Views on Public Physician Rating Websites: A Cross-Sectional Study
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-3982-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison M. Holliday, Allen Kachalia, Gregg S. Meyer, Thomas D. Sequist

Abstract

Numerical ratings and narrative comments about physicians are increasingly available online. These physician rating websites include independent websites reporting crowd-sourced data from online users and health systems reporting data from their internal patient experience surveys. To assess patient and physician views on physician rating websites. Cross-sectional physician (electronic) and patient (paper) surveys conducted in August 2015. Eight hundred twenty-eight physicians (response rate 43%) affiliated with one of four hospitals in a large accountable care organization in eastern Massachusetts; 494 adult patients (response rate 34%) who received care in this system in May 2015. Use and perceptions of physician rating websites. Fifty-three percent of physicians and 39% of patients reported visiting a physician rating website at least once. Physicians reported higher levels of agreement with the accuracy of numerical data (53%) and narrative comments (62%) from health system patient experience surveys compared to numerical data (36%) and narrative comments (36%) on independent websites. Patients reported higher levels of agreement with trusting the accuracy of data obtained from independent websites (57%) compared to health system patient experience surveys (45%). Twenty-one percent of physicians and 51% of patients supported posting narrative comments online for all consumers. The majority (78%) of physicians believed that posting narrative comments online would increase physician job stress; smaller proportions perceived a negative effect on the physician-patient relationship (46%), health care overuse (34%), and patient-reported experiences of care (33%). Over one-fourth of patients (29%) believed that posting narrative comments would cause them to be less open. Physicians and patients have different views on whether independent or health system physician rating websites are the more reliable source of information. Their views on whether such data should be shared on public websites are also discordant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#351,655
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#288
of 8,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,950
of 430,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.