The Representation of Patient Satisfaction in Physician Rating Sites. a Criteria-based Analysis of English- and German-language Sites
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
Background: Alongside information on illnesses and medical measures essential information on physicians’ performance and the corresponding patient satisfaction is also relevant for individual and public health as well as for aspects such as higher health literacy and lower health inequities. Patient rating sites (PRS) bear the potential to be a significant and widely available source of information prior to choosing a doctor.
Objectives: To examine, qualitatively and quantitatively, the extent to which PRSs currently represent the construct of patient satisfaction as it is addressed in research instruments for measuring patient satisfaction.
Methods: PRSs were searched for systematically in English-language and German-language search engines. Using qualitative content analysis a framework of patient satisfaction criteria was created on the basis of a systematic review of research instruments for measuring patient satisfaction. Finally, the original texts of the rating options provided by the PRS were correlated to individual framework criteria.
Results: The qualitative content analysis of the measurement instruments produced 13 criteria of patient satisfaction. A total of 21 PRSs were identified. The variables most frequently represented in PRSs are the less complex and thus relatively uniformly operationalized criteria such as office organization and office staff. On the other hand quite complex and thus diversely operationalized criteria of patient satisfaction such as professional competence and doctor-patient relation are also often found on these sites.
Conclusions: Assuming an increased impact of PRS as a source of information about quality of and satisfaction with physicians the specific PRS parameters for assessing doctors could significantly impact the image of doctors in society and the self-understanding of both doctors and patients. An important question in further research accompanying PRS, therefore, would be: which of the current operationalizations of patient satisfaction and professional competence presented in our study are establishing themselves in PRSs? Independently of the factual development, the question also arises whether and to what extent the official institutions of the health care system can and should influence the operationalization of patient satisfaction in PRSs. Certifications for PRSs could entail not just formal and legal standards but also specifications for a suitable representation and operationalization of patient satisfaction. Here, the difficulty would be to work out a set of criteria capable of consensus from the wide range of operationalizations shown by this study. The generation of such certifications should occur through a transparent process allowing the participation by various stakeholders and explicitly refer to basic principles of medical ethics and professionalism.
Objectives: To examine, qualitatively and quantitatively, the extent to which PRSs currently represent the construct of patient satisfaction as it is addressed in research instruments for measuring patient satisfaction.
Methods: PRSs were searched for systematically in English-language and German-language search engines. Using qualitative content analysis a framework of patient satisfaction criteria was created on the basis of a systematic review of research instruments for measuring patient satisfaction. Finally, the original texts of the rating options provided by the PRS were correlated to individual framework criteria.
Results: The qualitative content analysis of the measurement instruments produced 13 criteria of patient satisfaction. A total of 21 PRSs were identified. The variables most frequently represented in PRSs are the less complex and thus relatively uniformly operationalized criteria such as office organization and office staff. On the other hand quite complex and thus diversely operationalized criteria of patient satisfaction such as professional competence and doctor-patient relation are also often found on these sites.
Conclusions: Assuming an increased impact of PRS as a source of information about quality of and satisfaction with physicians the specific PRS parameters for assessing doctors could significantly impact the image of doctors in society and the self-understanding of both doctors and patients. An important question in further research accompanying PRS, therefore, would be: which of the current operationalizations of patient satisfaction and professional competence presented in our study are establishing themselves in PRSs? Independently of the factual development, the question also arises whether and to what extent the official institutions of the health care system can and should influence the operationalization of patient satisfaction in PRSs. Certifications for PRSs could entail not just formal and legal standards but also specifications for a suitable representation and operationalization of patient satisfaction. Here, the difficulty would be to work out a set of criteria capable of consensus from the wide range of operationalizations shown by this study. The generation of such certifications should occur through a transparent process allowing the participation by various stakeholders and explicitly refer to basic principles of medical ethics and professionalism.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.