Patient 2.0 - Usage of Physician-Rating Websites and the Role of Soci...

Background: The number of physician-rating websites(PRWs) is risingrapidly, but usage is still poor. So far, there has been little discussionabout what kind of variables influence usage of PRWs.

Objective: We focused on the impact ofsociodemographic, psychographic variables and health status on use or disuse ofphysician-rating websites.

Methods: An online survey of 1006 randomly selectedGerman patients was conducted in September 2012. The sample was drawn from ane-panel maintained by GfK HealthCare. It was based on a randomly generated setof users, who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the previousthree months prior to the beginning of the survey. Incentives were offered forsurvey completion. In our study, we analysed the patients' knowledge and use ofphysician online ratings. We also analyzed the impact of sociodemographic,psychographic variables and health status on the use or disuse as well as thejudgement of PRWs andbehaviour intentions concerning PRWs. Furthermore, we were interested in judging theproneness of users and nonusers of PRW to use an app concerning physicianonline ratings and even pay for that app. Patients were asked to rate thefollowing on a 7-point scale: (1) the patients' knowledge of PRWs, (2) the useor disuse of PRWs, (3) thejudgement of PRWs andbehaviour intentions concerning PRWs, (4) the patients' attitude towards a physicianonline rating app. Data were analysed by using t-tests and X²–testscalculated with SPSS (version 20).

Results: The current study found that users andnonusers of PRWs differaccording to several sociodemographic and psychographic variables, healthstatus, judgement and future intentions according to PRWs. In general,especially younger people aged betweeen 18 and 44 are more prone to use PRWs than olderones aged between 45 and 70 (X²=3.198, p=.043). Also women use themmore than men (X²=9.383, p=.001), higher educated people (X²=9.704,p=.001) and people with chronic diseases (X²=5.633, p=.011). Nodifferences were found between users and nonusers in their daily Internet useand in using the Internet for health related information. Significantdifferences were found between users and nonusers in their feelings about theInternet and Web 2.0 in general (t-value =3.07, p=.002) and their digitalliteracy (t-value =4.30, p=.000). Users ascribed higher usefulness to PRWs thannonusers (t-value =11.61, p=.000) and users trust information on PRWs to a greaterdegree than nonusers (t-value =11.48, p=.000). Users are also more prone to ratea physician on a PRWin the future (t-value =7.63, p=.000) as well as to use a PRW in thefuture (t-value =12.97, p=.000). Additionally, users have a better attitudetowards physician online rating apps than nonusers (t-value=4.60, p=.000), aremore willing to use this app (t-value=4.72, p=.000), are more likely to pay forthis app (t-value=3.27, p=.001) and to recommend it (t-value=3.94, p=.000).

Conclusions: Today, morepeople are looking at PRWs than a few years ago, but it will take more timeuntil PRWs manage toattain significant attention across “average“patients. Understanding the profiles of users and nonusers may foster anincrease in the frequency of use of PRWs in the future. To attach theimportance of PRWs the communication concepts of the websites should match thecustomers' requirements. It would be also interesting toinvestigate PRW usage with respect to physician visists (e.g., do these siteshave any meaningful positive or negative consequences from physicians'point-of-view?).