Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

What Patients Say About Their Doctors Online: A Qualitative Content Analysis

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Doctor rating websites are a burgeoning trend, yet little is known about their content.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the content of Internet reviews about primary care physicians.

DESIGN

Qualitative content analysis of 712 online reviews from two rating websites. We purposively sampled reviews of 445 primary care doctors (internists and family practitioners) from four geographically dispersed U.S. urban locations. We report the major themes, and because this is a large sample, the frequencies of domains within our coding scheme.

RESULTS

Most reviews (63%) were positive, recommending the physician. We found a major distinction between global reviews, “Dr. B is a great doctor.” vs. specific descriptions which included interpersonal manner, “She always listens to what I have to say and answers all my questions.”; technical competence “No matter who she has recommended re: MD specialists, this MD has done everything right.”; and/or systems issues such as appointment and telephone access. Among specific reviews, interpersonal manner “Dr. A is so compassionate.” and technical competence “He is knowledgeable, will research your case before giving you advice.” comments tended to be more positive (69% and 80%, respectively), whereas systems-issues comments “Staff is so-so, less professional than should be…” were more mixed (60% positive, 40% negative).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of Internet reviews of primary care physicians are positive in nature. Our findings reaffirm that the care encounter extends beyond the patient–physician dyad; staff, access, and convenience all affect patient’s reviews of physicians. In addition, negative interpersonal reviews underscore the importance of well-perceived bedside manner for a successful patient–physician interaction.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Shinchuk LM, Chiou P, Czarnowski V, Meleger AL. Demographics and attitudes of chronic-pain patients who seek online pain-related medical information: implications for healthcare providers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil;89(2):141-6.

  2. Hay MC, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Wick K, Giesser B. Why patients go online: multiple sclerosis, the Internet, and physician-patient communication. Neurologist. 2008;14(6):374–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hay MC, Cadigan RJ, Khanna D, Strathmann C, Lieber E, Altman R, et al. Prepared patients: Internet information seeking by new rheumatology patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(4):575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rochman B. Health group therapy. Why so many patients are sharing their medical data online. Time;175(5):47-8.

  5. Frost J, Massagli M. PatientsLikeMe the case for a data-centered patient community and how ALS patients use the community to inform treatment decisions and manage pulmonary health. Chron Respir Dis. 2009;6(4):225–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fox S, Jones S. The Social Life of Health Information Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009.

  7. Feldman R. He may be friendly, but is your doctor competent? Indystar.com; 2010.

  8. Pasternak A, Scherger JE. Online reviews of physicians: what are your patients posting about you? Fam Pract Manag. 2009;16(3):9–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tuffs A. German doctors fear that performance rating websites may be libellous. (1468-5833 (Electronic)).

  10. Aungst H. Patients say the darnedest things. You can’t stop online ratings, but you can stop fretting about them. Med Econ. 2008;85(23):27–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beacon N, Margaret McCartney. Will doctor rating sites improve standard of care? BMJ. 2009;338:688–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hodgkin PK. Doctor rating sites. Web based patient feedback. BMJ. 2009;338:b1377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Freudenheim M. Noted Rater of Restaurants Brings Its Touch to Medicine New York Times; 2009.

  14. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med;25(9):942-6.

  15. Fost D. The Coffee Was Lousy. The Wait Was Long. New York: New York Time; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Borzekowski DL, Schenk S, Wilson JL, Peebles R. e-Ana and e-Mia: A content analysis of pro-eating disorder web sites. Am J Public Health;100(8):1526-34.

  17. Jenssen BP, Klein JD, Salazar LF, Daluga NA, DiClemente RJ. Exposure to tobacco on the Internet: content analysis of adolescents’ Internet use. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):e180–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Trochim W. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ Evaluations of Health Care Providers in the Era of Social Networking: An Analysis of Physician-Rating Websites. J Gen Intern Med.

  21. Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15(1):25–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robertson R, Dixon A, Le Grand J. Patient choice in general practice: the implications of patient satisfaction surveys. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerard K, Salisbury C, Street D, Pope C, Baxter H. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients’ preferences. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl 2):3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Platonova EA, Kennedy KN, Shewchuk RM. Understanding patient satisfaction, trust, and loyalty to primary care physicians. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(6):696–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10(4):311–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(12):1829–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sitzia J. How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11(4):319–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lasek RJ, Barkley W, Harper DL, Rosenthal GE. An evaluation of the impact of nonresponse bias on patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care. 1997;35(6):646–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Davis MS. Variations in patients’ compliance with doctors’ advice: an empirical analysis of patterns o communication. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1968;58(2):274–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Comstock LM, Hooper EM, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Physician behaviors that correlate with patient satisfaction. J Med Educ. 1982;57(2):105–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Orth JE, Stiles WB, Scherwitz L, Hennrikus D, Vallbona C. Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients’ blood pressure control. Health Psychol. 1987;6(1):29–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Anderson RT, Camacho FT, Balkrishnan R. Willing to wait?: the influence of patient wait time on satisfaction with primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. YELP. An introduction to Yelp. 2010.

  34. Mazor KM, Clauser BE, Field T, Yood RA, Gurwitz JH. A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1403–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barkley WM, Furse DH. Changing priorities for improvement: the impact of low response rates in patient satisfaction. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996;22(6):427–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Leader S, Perales PJ. Provision of primary-preventive health care services by obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(3):391–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Shear CL, Gipe BT, Mattheis JK, Levy MR. Provider continuity and quality of medical care. A retrospective analysis of prenatal and perinatal outcome. Med Care. 1983;21(12):1204–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tates K, Meeuwesen L. Doctor-parent-child communication. A (re)view of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):839–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanner L. Doctors seek gag orders to stop patients’ online reviews. USA Today: The Associated Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lee TB. Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us". 2011.

  41. Church C. Mutual privacy agreements: a tool for medical practice protection. Ridge Business Journal. May 4, 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Anna M. Nápoles and Dr. Dean Schillinger for their early advice on this project. Dr. Sarkar is supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality K08 HS017594 and National Center for Research Resources KL2RR024130.

None of the funders had any role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Andrea López BS, Neda Ratanawongsa MD & Urmimala Sarkar MD, MPH

  2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco General Hospital, Box 1364, 1001 Potrero, Bldg 10, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1364, USA

    Andrea López BS, Neda Ratanawongsa MD & Urmimala Sarkar MD, MPH

  3. California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Alissa Detz MD

Authors
  1. Andrea López BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alissa Detz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neda Ratanawongsa MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Urmimala Sarkar MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Urmimala Sarkar MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

López, A., Detz, A., Ratanawongsa, N. et al. What Patients Say About Their Doctors Online: A Qualitative Content Analysis. J GEN INTERN MED 27, 685–692 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4

KEY WORDS