An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings

<strong>Background</strong> Many websites allow consumers to evaluate their healthcare experience yet scant data exist that explore the type and content of reviews. <strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate and describe online healthcare provider reviews. <strong>Methods&l...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Erik Black, Lindsay Thompson, Heidi Saliba, Kara Dawson, Nicole Paradise Black
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT 2009-12-01
Series:Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hijournal.bcs.org/index.php/jhi/article/view/744
id doaj-28e4bf644fb7451b850a37a579122280
record_format Article
spelling doaj-28e4bf644fb7451b850a37a5791222802020-11-25T00:15:33ZengBCS, The Chartered Institute for ITJournal of Innovation in Health Informatics2058-45552058-45632009-12-0117424925310.14236/jhi.v17i4.744686An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratingsErik BlackLindsay ThompsonHeidi SalibaKara DawsonNicole Paradise Black<strong>Background</strong> Many websites allow consumers to evaluate their healthcare experience yet scant data exist that explore the type and content of reviews. <strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate and describe online healthcare provider reviews. <strong>Methods</strong> We analysed 16 703 ratings on 6101 providers from four US cities. Ratings spanned five categories and an overall provider score. We also performed text analyses of narrative commentary (n = 15 952). <strong>Results</strong> Providers had a high mean score for each category (3.7_4.0 out of 5). Higher overall scores were associated with higher staff (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.0, 95% CI 2.9_3.0, P&lt; 0.01) and punctuality scores (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 2.05_2.15, P&lt; 0.01). Review frequency was inversely associated with scores, (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92_0.96, P&lt;0.01). Analyses of narrative commentaries revealed more positive than negative terms (P&lt; 0.01). <strong>Conclusions</strong> Online ratings were largely positive. Future research must discern how online surveys affect patient referrals, provider reputations and patients' perceptions of quality of care.http://hijournal.bcs.org/index.php/jhi/article/view/744healthcare providersonline reviewquality of care
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Erik Black
Lindsay Thompson
Heidi Saliba
Kara Dawson
Nicole Paradise Black
spellingShingle Erik Black
Lindsay Thompson
Heidi Saliba
Kara Dawson
Nicole Paradise Black
An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
healthcare providers
online review
quality of care
author_facet Erik Black
Lindsay Thompson
Heidi Saliba
Kara Dawson
Nicole Paradise Black
author_sort Erik Black
title An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
title_short An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
title_full An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
title_fullStr An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
title_full_unstemmed An analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
title_sort analysis of healthcare providers' online ratings
publisher BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT
series Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
issn 2058-4555
2058-4563
publishDate 2009-12-01
description <strong>Background</strong> Many websites allow consumers to evaluate their healthcare experience yet scant data exist that explore the type and content of reviews. <strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate and describe online healthcare provider reviews. <strong>Methods</strong> We analysed 16 703 ratings on 6101 providers from four US cities. Ratings spanned five categories and an overall provider score. We also performed text analyses of narrative commentary (n = 15 952). <strong>Results</strong> Providers had a high mean score for each category (3.7_4.0 out of 5). Higher overall scores were associated with higher staff (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.0, 95% CI 2.9_3.0, P&lt; 0.01) and punctuality scores (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 2.05_2.15, P&lt; 0.01). Review frequency was inversely associated with scores, (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92_0.96, P&lt;0.01). Analyses of narrative commentaries revealed more positive than negative terms (P&lt; 0.01). <strong>Conclusions</strong> Online ratings were largely positive. Future research must discern how online surveys affect patient referrals, provider reputations and patients' perceptions of quality of care.
topic healthcare providers
online review
quality of care
url http://hijournal.bcs.org/index.php/jhi/article/view/744
work_keys_str_mv AT erikblack ananalysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT lindsaythompson ananalysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT heidisaliba ananalysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT karadawson ananalysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT nicoleparadiseblack ananalysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT erikblack analysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT lindsaythompson analysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT heidisaliba analysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT karadawson analysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
AT nicoleparadiseblack analysisofhealthcareprovidersonlineratings
_version_ 1725386280172257280