Online Reputations: Comparing Hospital- and Patient-Generated Ratings in Academic Otolaryngology

2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110059
Author(s):  
Krystyne Basa ◽  
Nicolette Jabbour ◽  
Matthew Rohlfing ◽  
Sarah Schmoker ◽  
Claire M. Lawlor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Lower Score ◽  
Internet Search ◽  
Aggregate Score ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating

Objectives: This study compares hospital-generated online ratings to patient-generated online ratings in academic otolaryngology and evaluates physician factors influencing these results. Methods: Websites of academic otolaryngologists were assessed for inclusion of hospital-generated Press Ganey surveys. Corresponding scores on Healthgrades and Vitals.com were identified via internet search. Hospital ratings were compared with patient-generated ratings, including score, demographics, and number of ratings. All data was collected between July 15th 2019 and August 22nd 2019. Results: 742 academic otolaryngologists with hospital-generated ratings were identified. Mean hospital-generated rating was significantly higher ((4.70, 95% CI 4.69-4.72) than patient-generated rating (Vitals:4.26, 95% CI 4.18-4.34, and Healthgrades:4.02, 95% CI 3.87-4.18; P < .001). In patient-generated rating, an increased number of rating scores (>20) was associated with male gender, professor ranking, and >30 years in practice ( P < .005). Physician demographics did not impact number of ratings in hospital-generated setting. With patient-generated, lower aggregate score was associated with professor ranking ( P = .001). In hospital-generated, lower score was associated with >30+ years in practice ( P = .023). Across all platforms, comprehensive otolaryngologists and neurotologists/otologists were rated lower in comparison to other specialties (PGS: P < .001,Vitals: P = .027,Healthgrades: P = .016). Conclusion: Hospital-generated ratings yield higher mean scores than patient-generated platforms. Between sources, Healthgrades.com scores were lower than those of Vitals.com . Professors with >30 years of practice generated more reviews in patient-generated ratings, and these physicians were generally rated lower. Access to patient-generated ratings is universal and physicians should be aware of variability between online rating platforms as scores may affect referrals and practice patterns.

Is RateMyProfessors.com Unbiased? A Look at the Impact of Social Modelling on Student Online Reviews of Marketing Classes

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ackerman ◽  
Christina Chung
Keyword(s):  
Online Reviews ◽  
Student Ratings ◽  
Course Selection ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Social Modelling ◽  
The Impact

This article looks at how marketing student ratings of instructors and classes on online rating sites such as RateMyProfessor.com can be biased by prior student ratings of that class. Research has identified potential sources of bias of online student reviews administered by universities. Less has been done on the sources of bias inherent in a ratings site where those doing the rating can see prior ratings. To measure how student online ratings of a course can be influenced by existing online ratings, the study used five different prior ratings experiment conditions: mildly negative prior ratings, strongly negative prior ratings, mildly positive prior ratings, strongly positive prior ratings, and a control condition of no prior ratings. Results of this study suggest prior online ratings, both positive and negative, do affect subsequent online ratings and bias them. There are several implications. First, both negative and positive ratings can have an impact biasing subsequent ratings. Second, sometimes negative prior ratings must be strong in valence in order to bias subsequent ratings whereas even mildly positive ratings can have an impact. Last, this bias can potentially influence student course selection.

Risk Analysis of Nonunion After First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Arthrodesis

2020 ◽  
pp. 193864001989982
Author(s):  
Carla Weber ◽  
Daiwei Yao ◽  
Michael Schwarze ◽  
Karolina Andersson ◽  
Vlatka Andric ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Hallux Rigidus ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Great Toe ◽  
Therapeutic Level ◽  
Data Set ◽  
First Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Radiological Data

Objective: The standard therapy for a symptomatic hallux rigidus is still the arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint. A nonunion of the arthrodesis is a possible postoperative complication. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of nonunion associated with first MTP joint arthrodesis and identify risk factors influencing this. Methods: This retrospective study included 197 patients who were treated with an isolated first MTP joint arthrodesis. The severity of MTP-related osteoarthritis was assessed clinically and radiologically prior to surgery according to the Waizy classification. Patient characteristics and radiological parameters were evaluated postoperatively. Results: A full clinical and radiological data set was collected from 153 out of 197 patients. We identified 14 cases of nonunion and found that nonunion was associated with higher incidence of male gender (P = .29), comorbidity (P = .035), higher grade of osteoarthritis (P = .01), and increased postoperative great toe dorsiflexion (P = .022). Conclusions: Arthrodesis of the first MTP joint is a safe operative treatment, as demonstrated by a nonunion rate of 9.2%. Negative influencing factors were the presence of preexisting diseases, higher grades of osteoarthritis, and a relative increased dorsiflexion position of the great toe after surgery. These factors should be considered during pre-, intra-, and postoperative planning. Levels of Evidence: Therapeutic, Level IV: Retrospective

scholarly journals Comparing the Impact of Online Ratings and Report Cards on Patient Choice of Cardiac Surgeon: Large Observational Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Li ◽  
Shin-Yi Chou ◽  
Mary E Deily ◽  
Mengcen Qian
Keyword(s):  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Report Card ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Objective Health ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Cardiac Surgeon ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Rating Information

BACKGROUND Patients may use two information sources about a health care provider’s quality: online physician reviews, which are written by patients to reflect their subjective experience, and report cards, which are based on objective health outcomes. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine the impact of online ratings on patient choice of cardiac surgeon compared to that of report cards. METHODS We obtained ratings from a leading physician review platform, Vitals; report card scores from Pennsylvania Cardiac Surgery Reports; and information about patients’ choices of surgeons from inpatient records on coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries done in Pennsylvania from 2008 to 2017. We scraped all reviews posted on Vitals for surgeons who performed CABG surgeries in Pennsylvania during our study period. We linked the average overall rating and the most recent report card score at the time of a patient’s surgery to the patient’s record based on the surgeon’s name, focusing on fee-for-service patients to avoid impacts of insurance networks on patient choices. We used random coefficient logit models with surgeon fixed effects to examine the impact of receiving a high online rating and a high report card score on patient choice of surgeon for CABG surgeries. RESULTS We found that a high online rating had positive and significant effects on patient utility, with limited variation in preferences across individuals, while the impact of a high report card score on patient choice was trivial and insignificant. About 70.13% of patients considered no information on Vitals better than a low rating; the corresponding figure was 26.66% for report card scores. The findings were robust to alternative choice set definitions and were not explained by surgeon attrition, referral effect, or admission status. Our results also show that the interaction effect of rating information and a time trend was positive and significant for online ratings, but small and insignificant for report cards. CONCLUSIONS A patient’s choice of surgeon is affected by both types of rating information; however, over the past decade, online ratings have become more influential, while the effect of report cards has remained trivial. Our findings call for information provision strategies that incorporate the advantages of both online ratings and report cards.

Toward a better fitness club: Evidence from exerciser online rating and review using latent Dirichlet allocation and support vector machine

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan (Sixue) Jia
Keyword(s):  
Support Vector Machine ◽  
Latent Dirichlet Allocation ◽  
Support Vector ◽  
Svm Classifier ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Fitness Clubs ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Dirichlet Allocation

Fitness clubs have never ceased searching for quality improvement opportunities to better serve their exercisers, whereas exercisers have been posting online ratings and reviews regarding fitness clubs. Studied together, the quantitative rating and qualitative review can provide a comprehensive depiction of exercisers’ perception of fitness clubs. However, the typological and dimensional discrepancies of online rating and review have hindered the joint study of the two data sets to fully exploit their business value. To this end, this study bridges the gap by examined 53,979 pairs of exerciser online rating and review from 100 fitness clubs in Shanghai, China. Using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) based text mining, we identified the 17 major topics on which the exercisers were writing. A support vector machine (SVM) classifier was then employed to establish the rating-review relations, with an accuracy rate of up to 86%. Finally, the relative impact of each topic on exerciser satisfaction was computed and compared by introducing virtual reviews. The significance of this study is that it systematically creates a standardized protocol of mining and correlating the massive structured/quantitative and unstructured/qualitative data available online, which is readily transferable to the other service and product sectors.

How Endogenous Crowd Formation Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Online Ratings

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1475-1490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaël Le Mens ◽  
Balázs Kovács ◽  
Judith Avrahami ◽  
Yaakov Kareev
Keyword(s):  
Computer Simulations ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Negative Bias ◽  
Rating Data ◽  
Average Rating ◽  
Consumption Decisions ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Crowd Formation

People frequently consult average ratings on online recommendation platforms before making consumption decisions. Research on the wisdom-of-the-crowd phenomenon suggests that average ratings provide unbiased quality estimates. Yet we argue that the process by which average ratings are updated creates a systematic bias. In analyses of more than 80 million online ratings, we found that items with high average ratings tend to attract more additional ratings than items with low average ratings. We call this asymmetry in how average ratings are updated endogenous crowd formation. Using computer simulations, we showed that it implies the emergence of a negative bias in average ratings. This bias affects items with few ratings particularly strongly, which leads to ranking mistakes. The average-rating rankings of items with few ratings are worse than their quality rankings. We found evidence for the predicted pattern of biases in an experiment and in analyses of large online-rating data sets.

Fertility preservation in female oncology patients: Factors influencing practice patterns.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e22108-e22108
Author(s):  
Papri Sarkar ◽  
Gwendolyn P. Quinn ◽  
Anthony Imudia ◽  
Susan Thomas Vadaparampil
Keyword(s):  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Factors Influencing

scholarly journals Academic Rhinologists’ Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments

2020 ◽  
pp. 194589242095836
Author(s):  
Khodayar Goshtasbi ◽  
Brandon M. Lehrich ◽  
Mehdi Abouzari ◽  
Dariush Bazyani ◽  
Arash Abiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Wait Time ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Scholarly Productivity ◽  
Bedside Manner ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Positive Comment

Introduction The emergence of popular online rating websites, social media platforms, and public databases for industry payments and scholarly outputs provide a complete physician online presence which may guide choice and satisfaction. Methods Websites of all U.S. otolaryngology academic institutions were queried for fellowship-trained rhinologists. Additional well-known and academically active rhinologists were identified by the senior author. Online ratings and comments were collected from Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, and RateMD websites, and weighted rating scores (RS) were calculated on a 1–5 scale. Results A total of 210 rhinologists with 16 ± 9 years of practice were included, where 6901 online ratings (33 ± 47 per rhinologist) provided an average RS of 4.3 ± 0.6. RS was not different according to gender ( p = 0.58), geographic quartile ( p = 0.48), social media presence ( p = 0.41), or attending top-ranked medical school ( p = 0.86) or residency programs ( p = 0.89). Years of practice negatively correlated with RS (R = –0.22, p<0.01), and academic ranking significantly influenced RS, with professors, associate professors, and assistant professors scoring 4.1 ± 0.6, 4.3 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.6, respectively ( p = 0.03). Of the 3,304 narrative comments analyzed (3.1 ± 11.6 per rhinologist), 76% (positive) and 7% (negative) had elements of clinical knowledge/outcomes, 56% (positive) and 7% (negative) of communication/bedside manner, and 9% (positive) and 7% (negative) of office staff, cost, and wait-time. All negative comment categories had moderate negative correlation with RS, while positive comment categories regarding knowledge/competence and bedside manner weakly correlated with higher RS. Number of publications (48 ± 54) positively correlated with 2018 industry payments ($11,384 ± $19,025) among those receiving industry compensation >$300 (n = 113). Attending a top-ranked medical school was associated with higher industry payments ( p<0.01) and H-index ( p = 0.02). Conclusion Academic rhinologists’ online RS was not associated with gender, geographic location, or attending a top-ranked training program, and their scholarly productivity was significantly correlated with total industry payments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document