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.

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.

Comparison of a preferred versus non-preferred waterpipe tobacco flavour: subjective experience, smoking behaviour and toxicant exposure

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor L Leavens ◽  
Leslie M Driskill ◽  
Neil Molina ◽  
Thomas Eissenberg ◽  
Alan Shihadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Monoxide ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Smoking Behaviour ◽  
Toxicant Exposure ◽  
P Values ◽  
Smoking Topography ◽  
Exhaled Carbon Monoxide ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Survey Questionnaires

IntroductionOne possible reason for the rapid proliferation of waterpipe (WP) smoking is the pervasive use of flavoured WP tobacco. To begin to understand the impact of WP tobacco flavours, the current study examined the impact of a preferred WP tobacco flavour compared with a non-preferred tobacco flavoured control on user’s smoking behaviour, toxicant exposure and subjective smoking experience.MethodThirty-six current WP smokers completed two, 45-minute ad libitum smoking sessions (preferred flavour vs non-preferred tobacco flavour control) in a randomised cross-over design. Participants completed survey questionnaires assessing subjective smoking experience, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing, and provided blood samples for monitoring plasma nicotine. WP smoking topography was measured continuously throughout the smoking session.ResultsWhile participants reported an enhanced subjective smoking experience including greater interest in continued use, greater pleasure derived from smoking, increased liking and enjoyment, and willingness to continue use after smoking their preferred WP tobacco flavour (p values <0.05), no significant differences were observed in nicotine and carbon monoxide boost between flavour preparations. Greater average puff volume (p=0.018) was observed during the non-preferred flavour session. While not significant, measures of flow rate, interpuff interval (IPI), and total number of puffs were trending towards significance (p values <0.10), with decreased IPI and greater total number of puffs during the preferred flavour session.DiscussionThe current study is the first to examine flavours in WP smoking by measuring preferred versus control preparations to understand the impact on subjective experience, smoking behaviour and toxicant exposure. The pattern of results suggests that even this relatively minor manipulation resulted in significant changes in subjective experience. These results indicate a possible need for regulations restricting flavours in WP tobacco as with combustible cigarettes.

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.

scholarly journals Commentary on: The Impact of a Plastic Surgeon’s Gender on Patient Choice

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simeon Wall ◽  
Holly Wall
Keyword(s):  
Patient Choice ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Report Card Grades on the Physical Activity of Children and Youth From 10 Countries With High Human Development Index: Global Matrix 3.0

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (s2) ◽  
pp. S284-S297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia A. González ◽  
Joel D. Barnes ◽  
Patrick Abi Nader ◽  
Dolores Susana Andrade Tenesaca ◽  
Javier Brazo-Sayavera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Human Development ◽  
Human Development Index ◽  
Report Card ◽  
Children And Youth ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Global Alliance ◽  
Development Index ◽  
Average Grade ◽  
Report Card Grades

Background: The Global Matrix 3.0 brings together the Report Card grades for 10 physical activity indicators for children and youth from 49 countries. This study describes and compares the Global Matrix 3.0 findings among 10 countries with high Human Development Index. Methods: Report Cards on physical activity indicators were developed by each country following a harmonized process. Countries informed their Report Cards with the best and most recent evidence available. Indicators were graded using a common grading rubric and benchmarks established by the Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance. A database of grades from the countries was compiled, and letter grades were converted to numerical equivalents. Descriptive statistics and scores for groups of indicators were calculated, and correlation analyses were conducted. Results: Grades for the 10 countries clustered around “D” ranging from “F” to “B+.” Active Transportation had the highest average grade (“C”), whereas Overall Physical Activity had the lowest average grade (“D-”). Low grades were observed for both behavioral and sources of influence indicators. Conclusions: In the context of social and economical changes of high- Human Development Index countries, urgent actions to increase physical activity among children and youth are required. Surveillance and monitoring efforts are required to fill research gaps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document