Health Policy

ISSN:

0168-8510

国家:

Austria

影响因子:

3.6 (2023)

SCIE收录情况:

SCIE , SSCI

JCR分区:

Q1

Bernhard Guetz; Bernhard Guetz; Sonja Bidmon
2023-06-01 相关链接

摘要

Objectives Increasingly, the credibility of online reviews is drawing critical attention due to the lack of control mechanisms, the constant debate about fake reviews and, last but not least, current developments in the field of artificial intelligence. For this reason, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which assessments recorded on physician rating websites (PRWs) are credible, based on a comparison to other evaluation criteria. Methods Referring to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across different scientific databases. Data were synthesized by comparing individual statistical outcomes, objectives and conclusions. Results The chosen search strategy led to a database of 36,755 studies of which 28 were ultimately included in the systematic review. The literature review yielded mixed results regarding the credibility of PRWs. While seven publications supported the credibility of PRWs, six publications found no correlation between PRWs and alternative datasets. 15 studies reported mixed results. Conclusions This study has shown that ratings on PRWs seem to be credible when relying primarily on patients’ perception. However, these portals seem inadequate to represent alternative comparative values such as the medical quality of physicians. For health policy makers our results show that decisions based on patients’ perceptions may be well supported by data from PRWs. For all other decisions, however, PRWs do not seem to contain sufficiently useful data.

Physician rating website; Credibility; E-wom; Literature review; 30DRAM; ACF; AS; AUC; CAN; CGCAHPS; DIM; ENG; ER; e-WoM; F30DR; GER; GPPS; HCAHPS; HI; HIM; HLQM; IHM; KPSS; MBS; NHSIS; OQC; PCP; PGPSS; PPQM; PRISMA; PR; PREMS; PRM; PRS; PRW; PRWs; PS; QuE; SGS; SPDC; SV; U.S.A.

卫生服务 ; 信息资源 ; 其他

Not Available

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。