↓ Skip to main content

Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3492-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart McLennan, Daniel Strech, Hannes Kahrass

Abstract

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians' quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people's willingness to rate their physician on PRWs. A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail. Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs. These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Computer Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,271,448
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,471
of 7,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,357
of 335,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#133
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.