Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. METHODS: This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample. RESULTS: In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models. CONCLUSIONS: Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures : results from two German physician rating websites

BACKGROUND: Even though physician rating websites (PRWs) have been gaining in importance in both practice and research, little evidence is available on the association of patients' online ratings with the quality of care of physicians. It thus remains unclear whether patients should rely on these ratings when selecting a physician. The objective of this study was to measure the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures for 65 physician practices from the German Integrated Health Care Network "Quality and Efficiency" (QuE). METHODS: Online reviews from two German PRWs were included which covered a three-year period (2011 to 2013) and included 1179 and 991 ratings, respectively. Information for 65 QuE practices was obtained for the year 2012 and included 21 measures related to structural information (N = 6), process quality (N = 10), intermediate outcomes (N = 2), patient satisfaction (N = 1), and costs (N = 2). The Spearman rank coefficient of correlation was applied to measure the association between ratings and practice-related information. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction results from offline surveys and the patients per doctor ratio in a practice were shown to be significantly associated with online ratings on both PRWs. For one PRW, additional significant associations could be shown between online ratings and cost-related measures for medication, preventative examinations, and one diabetes type 2-related intermediate outcome measure. There again, results from the second PRW showed significant associations with the age of the physicians and the number of patients per practice, four process-related quality measures for diabetes type 2 and asthma, and one cost-related measure for medication. CONCLUSIONS: Several significant associations were found which varied between the PRWs. Patients interested in the satisfaction of other patients with a physician might select a physician on the basis of online ratings. Even though our results indicate associations with some diabetes and asthma measures, but not with coronary heart disease measures, there is still insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions. The limited number of practices in our study may have weakened our findings.

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Background: Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. Objective: To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. Methods: Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? Results: Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. Conclusions: Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.

virtX - Ein rechnergestütztes System zum Training des intraoperativen Einsatzes eines mobilen Bildverstärkers

Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Die korrekte intraoperative Positionierung und Einstellung eines mobilen Bildverstärkers (auch C-Bogen) kann zurzeit theoretisch mit Hilfe von Lehrbüchern erlernt, am Gerät selbst aber nur ohne visuelle Rückmeldung, d.h. ohne ein zur Ausrichtung korrespondierendes Röntgenbild, trainiert werden. Hieraus ergibt sich die Fragestellung, inwiefern das Training der Handhabung und richtigen Einstellung des C-Bogens in verschiedenen Operationsszenarien durch ein C-Bogen Simulationssystem als Teil eines CBT-Systems (Computer Based Training) unterstützt werden kann. Methoden: In Kooperation mit Ärzten aus Unfallchirurgie und Radiologie wurde das computer-basierte Trainingssystem virtX entwickelt. virtX kann dem Nutzer verschiedene Aufgaben zur Einstellung eines C-Bogens stellen und die Ausführung und das Ergebnis bewerten. Die Aufgaben können mit Hilfe eines Autorensystems erstellt und vom Trainierenden in verschiedenen Modi erfüllt werden: im rein virtuellen Modus oder im kombinierten virtuell-realen Modus. Im rein virtuellen Modus steuert der Nutzer den virtuellen C-Bogen in einem virtuellen OP-Saal mittels einer grafisch-interaktiven Benutzungsoberfläche. Im virtuell-realen Modus hingegen wird die Ausrichtung eines realen C-Bogens erfasst und auf den virtuellen C-Bogen übertragen. Während der Aufgabenerfüllung kann der Benutzer zu jeder Zeit ein realitätsnahes, virtuelles Röntgenbild erzeugen und dabei alle Parameter wie Blendenstellung, Röntgenintensität, etc. wie bei einem realen C-Bogen steuern. virtX wurde auf einem dreitägigen Kurs für OP-Personal mit 120 Teilnehmern eingesetzt und auf der Basis von Fragebögen evaluiert. Ergebnisse: Von den Teilnehmern gaben 79 einen ausgefüllten Evaluations-Fragebogen ab. Das Durchschnittsalter der 62 weiblichen und 15 männlichen Teilnehmer (zwei o.A.) lag bei 34 ± 9 Jahren, die Berufserfahrung bei 8,3 ± 7,6 Jahren. 18 Personen (23%) gaben an, gelegentlich mit einem C-Bogen zu arbeiten, 61 (77%) arbeiteten regelmäßig damit. Über 83% der befragten Teilnehmer empfanden virtX als eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zur herkömmlichen Ausbildung am C-Bogen. Das virtuelle Röntgen wurde mit einer Zustimmung von 91% der befragten Teilnehmer als besonders wichtig für das Verständnis der Arbeitsweise eines C-Bogens beurteilt. Ebenso erhielt der kombinierte virtuell-reale Modus mit 84% Zustimmung einen vergleichsweise hohen Stellenwert. Schlussfolgerung: Die Befragung zeichnet ein positives Bild der Akzeptanz des virtX-System als substanzielle Ergänzung zur herkömmlichen Ausbildung am C-Bogen.

Vignettentechnik: Einfluss des Geschlechts der Vignettenprotagonisten auf die Korruptionsbewertung

Die Studie basiert auf einem Experiment, bei dem Einflussfaktoren auf Korruptionsbereitschaft untersucht wurden. Es wurden personale und situative Einflussfaktoren berücksichtigt. Mithilfe eines 2x2x2-Vignettendesigns wurden die situativen Einflussfaktoren operationalisiert und methodenkritisch überprüft, ob eine homogene Geschlechtswahl der Vignettenprotagonisten die Antworten der Versuchspersonen beeinflusst. Befragt wurden 171 Studierende der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Es konnten keine statistisch signifikanten Effekte nachgewiesen werden, die schlussfolgern ließen, dass die Versuchspersonen in ihren Antworten durch die homogene Geschlechtswahl der Vignettenprotagonisten beeinflusst wurden. Die Versuchspersonen wählten ihre Antworten unabhängig davon, ob eine Vignette mit weiblichen Protagonisten oder eine Vignette mit männlichen Protagonisten vorlag.

Situative Risikofaktoren von Korruption – Gelegenheit allein macht keine Diebe

In diesem Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse von sieben Datenhebungen zur Relevanz situativer Risikofaktoren für Korruption aus den Jahren 2010 bis 2013 vorgestellt. In fünf quantitativen Datenerhebungen wurden folgende sechs Faktoren untersucht: Dauer der Korruptionsbeziehung, Vorteilshöhe, Art der Vorteilsempfänger, Entdeckungswahrscheinlichkeit, Vorliegen einer persönliche Notlage und situative Unsicherheit. In zwei qualitativen Datenerhebungen wurde mit offenen Fragen nach situativen Einflussfaktoren von Korruption gefragt. Erwartungswidrig erwiesen sich die untersuchten Faktoren als weitgehend irrelevant für die Bewertung von Korruption sowie für das Meldeverhalten bei beobachteter Korruption. Zu vermuteten ist, dass situative Risikofaktoren nicht unmittelbar, sondern indirekt über vom Umfeld geteilte mögliche Rechtfertigungen korrupter Handlungen im Alltag wirken. Die durchgängig nicht signifikanten Ergebnisse lassen daran zweifeln, dass korruptes Handeln maßgeblich durch situative Risikofaktoren beeinflussbar ist.