title: An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Physician rating websites (PRW) have been gaining in popularity among patients who are seeking a physician. However, little evidence is available on the number, distribution, or trend of evaluations on PRWs. Furthermore, there is no published evidence available that analyzes the characteristics of the patients who provide ratings on PRWs.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of the study was to analyze all physician evaluations that were posted on the German PRW, jameda, in 2012.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012 were analyzed and contained 127,192 ratings of 53,585 physicians from 107,148 patients. Information included medical specialty and gender of the physician, age, gender, and health insurance status of the patient, as well as the results of the physician ratings. Statistical analysis was carried out using the median test and Kendall Tau-b test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirty-seven percent of all German physicians were rated on jameda in 2012. Nearly half of those physicians were rated once, and less than 2% were rated more than ten times (mean number of ratings 2.37, SD 3.17). About one third of all rated physicians were female. Rating patients were mostly female (60%), between 30-50 years (51%) and covered by Statutory Health Insurance (83%). A mean of 1.19 evaluations per patient could be calculated (SD 0.778). Most of the rated medical specialties were orthopedists, dermatologists, and gynecologists. Two thirds of all ratings could be assigned to the best category, "very good". Female physicians had significantly better ratings than did their male colleagues (P<.001). Additionally, significant rating differences existed between medical specialties (P<.001). It could further be shown that older patients gave better ratings than did their younger counterparts (P<.001). The same was true for patients covered by private health insurance; they gave more favorable evaluations than did patients covered by statutory health insurance (P<.001). No significant rating differences could be detected between female and male patients (P=.505). The likelihood of a good rating was shown to increase with a rising number of both physician and patient ratings.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our findings are mostly in line with those published for PRWs from the United States. It could be shown that most of the ratings were positive, and differences existed regarding sociodemographic characteristics of both physicians and patients. An increase in the usage of PRWs might contribute to reducing the lack of publicly available information on physician quality. However, it remains unclear whether PRWs have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by individual health care providers. Further research should assess in more detail the motivation of patients who rate their physicians online.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Management-IFM, School of Business and Economics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany. Martin.Emmert@fau.de
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Emmert
authors.forename: Florian
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Meier
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010820:Physicians / Q000592:standards*; D017150:Public Sector
keywords: Internet; patient satisfaction; physician rating website; public reporting; quality of care
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jun;87(3):375-82
references.pmid: 22177585
references.citation: Inquiry. 2004-2005 Winter;41(4):435-46
references.pmid: 15835601
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 24;14(1):e38
references.pmid: 22366336
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 16;354(11):1147-56
references.pmid: 16540615
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 01;15(2):e24
references.pmid: 23372115
references.citation: Med Care. 2012 Feb;50(2):124-30
references.pmid: 22249921
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Sep 28;7:157
references.pmid: 17903244
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 15;148(2):111-23
references.pmid: 18195336
references.citation: J Ambul Care Manage. 2013 Jan-Mar;36(1):24-34
references.pmid: 23222010
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45
references.pmid: 12826639
references.citation: Qual Manag Health Care. 2012 Jan-Mar;21(1):9-19
references.pmid: 22207014
references.citation: Med Care. 2009 Jan;47(1):1-8
references.pmid: 19106724
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27(6):685-92
references.pmid: 22215270
references.citation: Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Nov;30(9):1970-80
references.pmid: 22795991
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 16;13(4):e95
references.pmid: 22088924
references.citation: Methods Inf Med. 2012;51(2):112-20
references.pmid: 22101427
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jul-Aug;21(4):40-51
references.pmid: 12117152
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 15;148(2):160-1
references.pmid: 18195340
references.citation: J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2269-73
references.pmid: 23228385
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Nov;25(11):1152-6
references.pmid: 20544300
references.citation: Med Care. 1998 Jul;36(7):945-54
references.pmid: 9674613
references.citation: J Health Polit Policy Law. 2006 Aug;31(4):773-810
references.pmid: 16971545
references.citation: Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413-33
references.pmid: 12428034
references.citation: Gesundheitswesen. 2012 Aug;74(8-9):e61-7
references.pmid: 22189671
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 07;10:332
references.pmid: 21138579
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Sep;25(9):942-6
references.pmid: 20464523
references.citation: Inform Prim Care. 2009;17(4):249-53
references.pmid: 20359403
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2013 Feb;131(2):304-11
references.pmid: 23296439
references.citation: CMAJ. 2007 Mar 13;176(6):754
references.pmid: 17353522
references.citation: Gesundheitswesen. 2009 Apr;71(4):e18-27
references.pmid: 19221986
references.citation: Gesundheitswesen. 2012 Jun;74(6):e25-41
references.pmid: 21866496