Analysis of Internet Review Site Comments for Spine Surgeons: How Office Staff, Physician Likeability, and Patient Outcome Are Associated With Online Evaluations
Observational study. To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons. With the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction s...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Vol. 43; no. 24; p. 1725 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
15.12.2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1528-1159, 1528-1159 |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Observational study.
To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.
With the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction scores of spine surgeons using comments from three leading physician rating websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, Google.com. This is the largest review of online comments and the largest review of spine surgeon comments.
From the North American Spine Society (NASS) membership directory, 210 spine surgeons practicing in Florida (133 orthopedic trained; 77 neurosurgery trained) with online comments available for review were identified, yielding 4701 patient comments. These were categorized according to subject: (1) surgeon competence, (2) surgeon likeability/character, (3) office staff, ease of scheduling, office environment. Type 1 and 2 comments were surgeon-dependent factors whereas type 3 comments were surgeon-independent factors. Patient comments also reported a score (1-5), 5 being the most favorable and 1 being the least favorable.
There were 1214 (25.8%) comments from Healthgrades, 2839 (60.4%) from Vitals, and 648 (13.8%) from Google. 89.9% (4225) of comments pertained to surgeon outcomes and likeability (comment type 1 and 2), compared with 10.1% (476) surgeon-independent comments (comment type 3) (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher number of favorable ratings associated with surgeon-dependent comments (types 1 and 2) compared with surgeon-independent comments (type 3). Surgeon-independent comments were associated with significantly lower scores compared with comments regarding surgeon-dependent factors on all review sites.
Spine surgeons are more likely to receive favorable reviews for factors pertaining to outcomes, likeability/character, and negative reviews based on ancillary staff interactions, billing, and office environment. Surgeons should continue to take an active role in modifying factors patients perceive as negative, even if not directly related to the physician.
3. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Observational study.
To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.
With the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction scores of spine surgeons using comments from three leading physician rating websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, Google.com. This is the largest review of online comments and the largest review of spine surgeon comments.
From the North American Spine Society (NASS) membership directory, 210 spine surgeons practicing in Florida (133 orthopedic trained; 77 neurosurgery trained) with online comments available for review were identified, yielding 4701 patient comments. These were categorized according to subject: (1) surgeon competence, (2) surgeon likeability/character, (3) office staff, ease of scheduling, office environment. Type 1 and 2 comments were surgeon-dependent factors whereas type 3 comments were surgeon-independent factors. Patient comments also reported a score (1-5), 5 being the most favorable and 1 being the least favorable.
There were 1214 (25.8%) comments from Healthgrades, 2839 (60.4%) from Vitals, and 648 (13.8%) from Google. 89.9% (4225) of comments pertained to surgeon outcomes and likeability (comment type 1 and 2), compared with 10.1% (476) surgeon-independent comments (comment type 3) (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher number of favorable ratings associated with surgeon-dependent comments (types 1 and 2) compared with surgeon-independent comments (type 3). Surgeon-independent comments were associated with significantly lower scores compared with comments regarding surgeon-dependent factors on all review sites.
Spine surgeons are more likely to receive favorable reviews for factors pertaining to outcomes, likeability/character, and negative reviews based on ancillary staff interactions, billing, and office environment. Surgeons should continue to take an active role in modifying factors patients perceive as negative, even if not directly related to the physician.
3. Observational study.STUDY DESIGNObservational study.To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.OBJECTIVETo evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.With the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction scores of spine surgeons using comments from three leading physician rating websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, Google.com. This is the largest review of online comments and the largest review of spine surgeon comments.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATAWith the ever-growing utilization of physician review websites, healthcare consumers are assuming more control over whom they choose for care. We evaluated patient feedback and satisfaction scores of spine surgeons using comments from three leading physician rating websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, Google.com. This is the largest review of online comments and the largest review of spine surgeon comments.From the North American Spine Society (NASS) membership directory, 210 spine surgeons practicing in Florida (133 orthopedic trained; 77 neurosurgery trained) with online comments available for review were identified, yielding 4701 patient comments. These were categorized according to subject: (1) surgeon competence, (2) surgeon likeability/character, (3) office staff, ease of scheduling, office environment. Type 1 and 2 comments were surgeon-dependent factors whereas type 3 comments were surgeon-independent factors. Patient comments also reported a score (1-5), 5 being the most favorable and 1 being the least favorable.METHODSFrom the North American Spine Society (NASS) membership directory, 210 spine surgeons practicing in Florida (133 orthopedic trained; 77 neurosurgery trained) with online comments available for review were identified, yielding 4701 patient comments. These were categorized according to subject: (1) surgeon competence, (2) surgeon likeability/character, (3) office staff, ease of scheduling, office environment. Type 1 and 2 comments were surgeon-dependent factors whereas type 3 comments were surgeon-independent factors. Patient comments also reported a score (1-5), 5 being the most favorable and 1 being the least favorable.There were 1214 (25.8%) comments from Healthgrades, 2839 (60.4%) from Vitals, and 648 (13.8%) from Google. 89.9% (4225) of comments pertained to surgeon outcomes and likeability (comment type 1 and 2), compared with 10.1% (476) surgeon-independent comments (comment type 3) (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher number of favorable ratings associated with surgeon-dependent comments (types 1 and 2) compared with surgeon-independent comments (type 3). Surgeon-independent comments were associated with significantly lower scores compared with comments regarding surgeon-dependent factors on all review sites.RESULTSThere were 1214 (25.8%) comments from Healthgrades, 2839 (60.4%) from Vitals, and 648 (13.8%) from Google. 89.9% (4225) of comments pertained to surgeon outcomes and likeability (comment type 1 and 2), compared with 10.1% (476) surgeon-independent comments (comment type 3) (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher number of favorable ratings associated with surgeon-dependent comments (types 1 and 2) compared with surgeon-independent comments (type 3). Surgeon-independent comments were associated with significantly lower scores compared with comments regarding surgeon-dependent factors on all review sites.Spine surgeons are more likely to receive favorable reviews for factors pertaining to outcomes, likeability/character, and negative reviews based on ancillary staff interactions, billing, and office environment. Surgeons should continue to take an active role in modifying factors patients perceive as negative, even if not directly related to the physician.CONCLUSIONSpine surgeons are more likely to receive favorable reviews for factors pertaining to outcomes, likeability/character, and negative reviews based on ancillary staff interactions, billing, and office environment. Surgeons should continue to take an active role in modifying factors patients perceive as negative, even if not directly related to the physician.3.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE3. |
| Author | Li, Deborah J Lebwohl, Nathan H Donnally, 3rd, Chester J Roth, Eric S Maguire, Jr, James A Barker, Grant P Rivera, Sebastian McCormick, Johnathon R |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Chester J surname: Donnally, 3rd fullname: Donnally, 3rd, Chester J organization: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, Florida – sequence: 2 givenname: Eric S surname: Roth fullname: Roth, Eric S organization: Department of Education, The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida – sequence: 3 givenname: Deborah J surname: Li fullname: Li, Deborah J organization: Department of Education, The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida – sequence: 4 givenname: James A surname: Maguire, Jr fullname: Maguire, Jr, James A organization: Department of Education, The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida – sequence: 5 givenname: Johnathon R surname: McCormick fullname: McCormick, Johnathon R organization: Department of Education, The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida – sequence: 6 givenname: Grant P surname: Barker fullname: Barker, Grant P organization: Department of Education, The University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida – sequence: 7 givenname: Sebastian surname: Rivera fullname: Rivera, Sebastian organization: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, Florida – sequence: 8 givenname: Nathan H surname: Lebwohl fullname: Lebwohl, Nathan H organization: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, Florida |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29975328$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkN1KAzEQhYMo1lbfQGQuvbA1m_33rhZ_CoUWV_FyyWYnNrqb1E1W6eP4pkas4MAwh-HjHDhDsq-NRkJOAzoJaJ5eXj8UE_pvWBrRPXIUxCwbB0Gc7__TAzK09tVDSRjkh2TA8jyNQ5Ydka-p5s3WKgtGwlw77DQ6eMAPhZ9QKIcwM22L2lmQpoNiozRC0XcvaLS9gnvzCUsplfBPx6W8gNXauwnFNSzUG_JKNcptL4DrGlbcKe8Ey94J0yJMO7_WGk87rOFZuTUsdfOTcPPBm97jPuSYHEjeWDzZ3RF5ur15nN2PF8u7-Wy6GIswDOi4qmQmBWVJKjGWIsnqMM1yTsOE0prxtGIMfRVJXFWCyjCLGOV1iBQFj2hUCTYi57--m86892hd2SorsGm4RtPbktEkSpOcZdSjZzu0r1qsy02nWt5ty79a2TfccH5p |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1177_1945892420958366 crossref_primary_10_1097_BCO_0000000000000788 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arth_2019_12_004 crossref_primary_10_3233_PRM_230011 crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_RVW_19_00158 crossref_primary_10_1177_18632521221133812 crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000001333 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2019_07_193 crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000004962 crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000001372 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40258_020_00592_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2020_04_045 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43390_021_00419_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_healthpol_2023_104821 crossref_primary_10_1177_21925682211069933 crossref_primary_10_3138_jvme_2019_0148 crossref_primary_10_1177_23259671231209794 crossref_primary_10_2196_12521 crossref_primary_10_1080_24725579_2020_1854394 crossref_primary_10_1097_BSD_0000000000001027 crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000002750 crossref_primary_10_1111_imj_14990 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_24113 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jse_2021_06_018 crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000003567 crossref_primary_10_1177_1938640019832363 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002740 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1528-1159 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29975328 |
| Genre | Journal Article Observational Study |
| GeographicLocations | Florida |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Florida |
| GroupedDBID | --- .-D .XZ .Z2 01R 0R~ 123 1J1 354 40H 4Q1 4Q2 4Q3 53G 5RE 5VS 6PF 71W 77Y 7O~ A9M AAAAV AAAXR AAGIX AAHPQ AAIQE AAJCS AAMOA AAMTA AAQKA AAQQT AARTV AASCR AASOK AAUEB AAWTL AAXQO ABASU ABBUW ABDIG ABJNI ABOCM ABPXF ABVCZ ABXVJ ABXYN ABZAD ABZZY ACCJW ACDDN ACDOF ACEWG ACGFO ACGFS ACILI ACLDA ACWDW ACWRI ACXJB ACXNZ ACZKN ADGGA ADHPY AE3 AE6 AEBDS AEETU AENEX AFBFQ AFDTB AFEXH AFMBP AFNMH AFSOK AFUWQ AGINI AHOMT AHQNM AHQVU AHVBC AIJEX AINUH AJCLO AJIOK AJNWD AJZMW AKCTQ AKULP ALKUP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALMTX AMJPA AMKUR AMNEI AOHHW AOQMC BOYCO BQLVK BYPQX C45 CGR CS3 CUY CVF DIWNM DU5 E.X EBS ECM EEVPB EIF EJD ERAAH EX3 F2K F2L F2M F2N F5P FCALG FL- GNXGY GQDEL H0~ HLJTE HZ~ IKREB IKYAY IN~ IPNFZ JF9 JG8 JK3 JK8 K8S KD2 KMI L-C L7B N9A NPM N~7 N~B O9- OAG OAH ODMTH OHH OHYEH OL1 OLG OLH OLU OLV OLY OLZ OPUJH OVD OVDNE OVIDH OVLEI OVOZU OWBYB OWU OWV OWW OWX OWY OWZ OXXIT P2P R2J RIG RLZ S4R S4S SJN TEORI TSPGW V2I VVN W3M WH7 WOQ WOW X3V X3W XXN XYM YFH YOC ZB8 ZFV ZY1 7X8 ADKSD ADSXY |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3310-bbf8fc0267fe5fc68d3789a03600d2a7b22e11565bbc0f38420ad3e0eca404bc2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 28 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=00007632-201812150-00013&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1528-1159 |
| IngestDate | Sun Sep 28 02:28:17 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:59:15 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 24 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3310-bbf8fc0267fe5fc68d3789a03600d2a7b22e11565bbc0f38420ad3e0eca404bc2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| PMID | 29975328 |
| PQID | 2064769280 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2064769280 pubmed_primary_29975328 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-Dec-15 20181215 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-12-15 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 12 year: 2018 text: 2018-Dec-15 day: 15 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Spine (Phila Pa 1976) |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| References | 29916955 - Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Sep 1;43(17):1217 |
| References_xml | – reference: 29916955 - Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Sep 1;43(17):1217 |
| SSID | ssj0006319 |
| Score | 2.418618 |
| Snippet | Observational study.
To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.
With the ever-growing utilization of physician... Observational study.STUDY DESIGNObservational study.To evaluate how online patient comments will affect website ratings for spine surgeons.OBJECTIVETo evaluate... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 1725 |
| SubjectTerms | Administrative Personnel Appointments and Schedules Clinical Competence Florida Health Facility Environment Humans Internet Male Neurosurgery Orthopedics Patient Satisfaction Personality Physician-Patient Relations |
| Title | Analysis of Internet Review Site Comments for Spine Surgeons: How Office Staff, Physician Likeability, and Patient Outcome Are Associated With Online Evaluations |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29975328 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2064769280 |
| Volume | 43 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos00007632-201812150-00013&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1ZS8NAEF7UivjifR-M4KPBNJtj44uoVPqgtViPvpU9sQhJtVHx5_hPnc0m9kkQDCQPgQ17THa-mdn5hpBDZsLAD03TS5gyXqjQTuGKUk8bhMNCNGlUZvE_XCWdDuv3027lcBtXxyrrPbHcqFUurY8cjfQ4TOI0YP7p6MWzVaNsdLUqoTFNGhShjJXqpD9hC49pWdgDVRRaSqi369S5NDk-v-056sLqQuPM_x1klsrmcvG_3VwiCxXMhDMnF8tkSmcrZO66CqSvkq-ajARyA84rqAtwgQLo4bfAZo7YQxaAqBZ6I2wFPZtCjVJ6Au38A24s-QS-LLgxR9CtPSRwNXzWjvz78wh4pqDrqFvh5q3AMWjsFN6VVGgFj8PiCRzjKbR-uMfHa-T-snV30faqag2epIgRPSEMM9IWtDI6MjJmiiYs5aghfV8FPBFBoHER4kgI6RvKUEZQKrSvJQ_9UMhgncxkeaY3CcQ8kYzTWEU2T1bSFM1CgdgmlKGItaZb5KCe_AH-DTbEwTOdv40Hk-nfIhtuBQcjR9sxQMWLtlnAtv_QeofMIzJi9txKM9olDYN7gd4js_K9GI5f90sxw2ene_0NMuXdDQ |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis+of+Internet+Review+Site+Comments+for+Spine+Surgeons%3A+How+Office+Staff%2C+Physician+Likeability%2C+and+Patient+Outcome+Are+Associated+With+Online+Evaluations&rft.jtitle=Spine+%28Philadelphia%2C+Pa.+1976%29&rft.au=Donnally%2C+3rd%2C+Chester+J&rft.au=Roth%2C+Eric+S&rft.au=Li%2C+Deborah+J&rft.au=Maguire%2C+Jr%2C+James+A&rft.date=2018-12-15&rft.eissn=1528-1159&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=1725&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097%2FBRS.0000000000002740&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29975328&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29975328&rft.externalDocID=29975328 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1528-1159&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1528-1159&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1528-1159&client=summon |