JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The digital assessment of service experiences represents a decisive process step of a feedback culture in numerous economic areas so far. In view of this digitalization of service assessments, the importance of Physician Rating Websites (PRWs) has also increased steadily in recent years. Although these online portals are evidently increasing in popularity, the credibility of ratings and other available information has scarcely been investigated.

Objective:

Our aim was to review current literature by focusing on the credibility of information delivered on PRWs. This approach was chosen to address the research question to what extent patients’ subjective assessments on PRWs are credible with regard to the comparison to objective evaluation criteria.

Methods:

In order to implement the literature review, we referred to the PRISMA guidelines. The respective search results of the search engine Google Scholar were chosen as baseline sample. In general, all studies, which compared data from PRWs with other data collections and allowed statements regarding the credibility of information published on PRWs were included in the analysis. Overall, the chosen search strategy led to a database of 24,000 studies covering the area of PRWs. After the application of gross exclusion criteria as well as title and abstract screening, 60 publications were included in the further analysis. Following the application of specific exclusion criteria, we identified 18 studies that met the thematic and qualitative criteria.

Results:

The literature review yielded mixed results regarding the credibility of PRWs. While six publications supported the credibility of PRWs, four publications found almost no correlation between PRWs and alternative datasets. Most of the studies found both, arguments for and against the credibility of PRWs. Although the ratings and information on PRWs were not comparable with each selected dataset, most studies found a moderate to strong correlation between patient satisfaction judgements and information published on PRWs.

Conclusions:

Information delivered on PRWs does not seem to be a good representation of objective quality of care and does not seem to be credible with regard to its relationship to professional medical evaluations. There is a significant relationship, however, to other methods of assessing subjective patient perceptions like alternative patient satisfaction measurement methods. Thus, PRWs can be interpreted as a useful tool to assess patient satisfaction and patient experience. Physicians are therefore invited to make the most of this easy tool to assess the patient base’s subjective evaluation of service encounters and use it as an e-WoM tool and for viral marketing purposes. Patients, on the other hand, should be aware that information delivered on PRWs is more or less subjective in nature but can be interpreted as similarly useful as other e-WoM tools.