Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Patient 2.0

Gaining Insight into Patients’ Rating Behavior by User-Generated Physician Review Mining

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9405))

Abstract

Patients 2.0 increasingly inform themselves about the quality of medical services on physician rating websites. However, little is known about whether the reviews and ratings on these websites truly reflect the quality of services or whether the ratings on these websites are rather influenced by patients’ individual rating behavior. Therefore, we investigate more than 790,000 physician reviews on Germany’s most used physician rating website jameda.de. Our results show that patients’ ratings do not only reflect treatment quality but are also influenced by treatment quality independent factors like age and complaint behavior. Hence, we provide evidence that users should be well aware of user specific rating distortions when intending to make their physician choice based on these ratings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    jameda GmbH, “FAQ”, http://www.jameda.de/hilfe/?show=user,08/15/2015.

  2. 2.

    [\d]{1,5} denotes that we look for a number with at least one and up to five digits.

  3. 3.

    In the following, the specialist types “psychiatry” and “psychology” are subsumed under the specialist category “neurology”.

References

  1. Beck, A.J.: Nutzung und Bewertung deutscher Arztbewertungsportale durch Patienten in deutschen Hausarztpraxen. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Ulm (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Emmert, M., Gerstner, B., Sander, U., Wambach, V.: Eine Bestandsaufnahme von Bewertungen auf Arztbewertungsportalen am Beispiel des Nürnberger Gesundheitsnetzes Qualität und Effizienz (QuE). Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Emmert, M., Sander, U., Esslinger, A., Maryschok, M., Schöffski, O., et al.: Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites. Methods Inf. Med. 51(2), 112 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Emmert, M., Halling, F., Meier, F.: Evaluations of dentists on a German physician rating website: an analysis of the ratings. J. Med. Internet Res. 17(1), e15 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Emmert, M., Maryschok, M., Eisenreich, S., Schöffski, O.: Arzt-Bewertungsportale im Internet: Geeignet zur Identifikation guter Arztpraxen? Das Gesundheitswesen 71(4), 218–219 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Emmert, M., Meier, F.: An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(8), e157 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Emmert, M., Meier, F., Heider, A.K., Dürr, C., Sander, U.: What do patients say about their physicians? an analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website. Health Policy 118(1), 66–73 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emmert, M., Meier, F., Pisch, F., Sander, U.: Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(8), e187 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Emmert, M., Sander, U., Pisch, F.: Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(2), e24 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer, S.: Project “Weisse Liste”: a German best practice example for online provider ratings in health care. In: Gurtner, S., Soyez, K. (eds.) Challenges and Opportunities in Health Care Management, pp. 339–346. Springer, Switzerland (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, S., Emmert, M.: A review of scientific evidence for public perspectives on online rating websites of healthcare providers. In: Gurtner, S., Soyez, K. (eds.) Challenges and Opportunities in Health Care Management, pp. 279–290. Springer, Switzerland (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gao, G.G., McCullough, J.S., Agarwal, R., Jha, A.K.: A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J. Med. Internet Res. 14(1), e38 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Geierhos, M., Bäumer, F.S., Schulze, S., Stuß, V.: Filtering reviews by random individual error. In: Ali, M., Kwon, Y.S., Lee, C.-H., Kim, J., Kim, Y. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9101, pp. 305–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Geierhos, M., Bäumer, F.S., Schulze, S., Stuß, V.: “I grade what I get but write what I think”. Inconsistency Analysis in Patients’ Reviews. In: ECIS 2015 Completed Research Papers, Paper 55. pp. 1–15. AIS (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grishman, R.: Information extraction: techniques and challenges. In: Pazienza, M.T. (ed.) Information Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to an Emerging Information Technology. LNCS, vol. 1299, pp. 10–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanauer, D.A., Zheng, K., Singer, D.C., Gebremariam, A., Davis, M.M.: Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA 311(7), 734–735 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hennig, S., Etgeton, S.: Arztbewertungen im Internet. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD 35(12), 841–845 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinz, V., Drevs, F., Wehner, J.: Electronic word of mouth about medical services. Technical report, Hamburg Center for Health Economics (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. López, A., Detz, A., Ratanawongsa, N., Sarkar, U.: What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27(6), 685–692 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reimann, S., Strech, D.: The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of english - and german-language sites. BMC Health Serv. Res. 10(1), 332 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sander, U., Emmert, M., Grobe, T.: Effektivität Effektivität und Effizienz der Arztsuche mit Arztsuch- und Bewertungsportalen und Google. Das Gesundheitswesen 75(06), 397–399 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schaefer, C., Schwarz, S.: Wer findet die besten Ärzte Deutschlands?: Arztbewertungsportale im Internet. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 104(7), 572–577 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Strech, D., Reimann, S.: German language physician rating sites. Das Gesundheitswesen 74(8–9), e61–e67 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Strech, D.: Arztbewertungsportale aus ethischer Perspektive. Eine orientierende Analyse. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im. Gesundheitswesen 104(8), 674–681 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Terlutter, R., Bidmon, S., Röttl, J.: Who uses physician-rating websites? differences in sociodemographic variables, psychographic variables, and health status of users and nonusers of physician-rating websites. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(3), e97 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Verhoef, L.M., Van de Belt, T.H., Engelen, L.J., Schoonhoven, L., Kool, R.B.: Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care a scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(2), e56 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Partial support for this work was provided by the Ministry of Innovation, Higher Education and Research of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn, Fürstenallee 11, D-33102, Paderborn, Germany

    Michaela Geierhos, Frederik S. Bäumer, Sabine Schulze & Caterina Klotz

Authors
  1. Michaela Geierhos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik S. Bäumer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabine Schulze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caterina Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Geierhos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Henning Christiansen

  2. ENS-Pavillon Jardin, CNRS-Institut Jean-Nicod, Paris, France

    Isidora Stojanovic

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Aglantzia, Cyprus

    George A. Papadopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Geierhos, M., Bäumer, F.S., Schulze, S., Klotz, C. (2015). Understanding the Patient 2.0. In: Christiansen, H., Stojanovic, I., Papadopoulos, G. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9405. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25591-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25591-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25590-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25591-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation