BACKGROUND
Prior research has highlighted gender differences in online physician reviews, however, to date no research has linked online ratings with quality of care.
OBJECTIVE
To compare a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (online ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior), to understand how patients’ perception and evaluation of doctors differ based on the physician’s gender and quality.
METHODS
We use data from a large online doctor reviews website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implement paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of the separate groups of physicians. We then enrich these findings by utilizing the NRC word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to the various segments: gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating.
RESULTS
We find significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews for male and female physicians. We find that numerical ratings are lower and the sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male doctors are still associated with positive reviews.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions: Given the growing impact of online reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different reviews faced by male and female physicians is important for consumers and for platform architects in order to revisit their platform design.