skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Gender, Soft Skills, and Patient Experience in Online Physician Reviews: A Large-Scale Text Analysis
Background Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. Objective This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. Methods A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). Results Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. Conclusions This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients’ choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1735095
PAR ID:
10180163
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Volume:
22
Issue:
7
ISSN:
1438-8871
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e14455
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, American Economic Review)
    Little is known about what drives gender disparities in health care and related social insurance benefits. Using data and variation from the Texas workers’ compensation program, we study the impact of gender match between doctors and patients on medical evaluations and associated disability benefits. Compared to differences among their male patient counterparts, female patients randomly assigned a female doctor rather than a male doctor are 5.2 percent more likely to be evaluated as disabled and receive 8.6 percent more subsequent cash benefits on average. There is no analogous gender-match effect for male patients. Our estimates indicate that increasing the share of female patients evaluated by female doctors may substantially shrink gender gaps in medical evaluations and associated outcomes. (JEL H75, I11, I12, J14, J16, J28) 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Medical Internet Research)
    BackgroundLaypeople have easy access to health information through large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, and search engines, such as Google. Search engines transformed health information access, and LLMs offer a new avenue for answering laypeople’s questions. ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the frequency of use and attitudes toward LLMs and search engines as well as their comparative relevance, usefulness, ease of use, and trustworthiness in responding to health queries. MethodsWe conducted a screening survey to compare the demographics of LLM users and nonusers seeking health information, analyzing results with logistic regression. LLM users from the screening survey were invited to a follow-up survey to report the types of health information they sought. We compared the frequency of use of LLMs and search engines using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. Lastly, paired-sample Wilcoxon tests compared LLMs and search engines on perceived usefulness, ease of use, trustworthiness, feelings, bias, and anthropomorphism. ResultsIn total, 2002 US participants recruited on Prolific participated in the screening survey about the use of LLMs and search engines. Of them, 52% (n=1045) of the participants were female, with a mean age of 39 (SD 13) years. Participants were 9.7% (n=194) Asian, 12.1% (n=242) Black, 73.3% (n=1467) White, 1.1% (n=22) Hispanic, and 3.8% (n=77) were of other races and ethnicities. Further, 1913 (95.6%) used search engines to look up health queries versus 642 (32.6%) for LLMs. Men had higher odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.34-1.99; P<.001) of using LLMs for health questions than women. Black (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.42-2.54; P<.001) and Asian (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19-2.30; P<.01) individuals had higher odds than White individuals. Those with excellent perceived health (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.1-1.93; P=.01) were more likely to use LLMs than those with good health. Higher technical proficiency increased the likelihood of LLM use (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.14-1.39; P<.001). In a follow-up survey of 281 LLM users for health, most participants used search engines first (n=174, 62%) to answer health questions, but the second most common first source consulted was LLMs (n=39, 14%). LLMs were perceived as less useful (P<.01) and less relevant (P=.07), but elicited fewer negative feelings (P<.001), appeared more human (LLM: n=160, vs search: n=32), and were seen as less biased (P<.001). Trust (P=.56) and ease of use (P=.27) showed no differences. ConclusionsSearch engines are the primary source of health information; yet, positive perceptions of LLMs suggest growing use. Future work could explore whether LLM trust and usefulness are enhanced by supplementing answers with external references and limiting persuasive language to curb overreliance. Collaboration with health organizations can help improve the quality of LLMs’ health output. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, JAMA Network Open)
    Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a medically supervised program designed to improve heart health after a cardiac event. Despite its demonstrated clinical benefits, CR participation among eligible patients remains poor due to low referral rates and individual barriers to care. To evaluate CR participation by patients who receive care from hospital-integrated physicians compared with independent physicians, and subsequently, to examine CR and recurrent cardiac hospitalizations. This retrospective cohort study evaluated Medicare Part A and Part B claims data from calendar years 2016 to 2019. All analyses were conducted between January 1 and April 30, 2024. Patients were included if they had a qualifying event for CR between 2017 and 2018, and qualifying events were identified using diagnosis codes on inpatient claims and procedure codes on outpatient and carrier claims. Eligible patients also had to continuously enroll in fee-for-service Medicare for 12 months or more before and after the index event. Physicians’ integration status and patients’ CR participation were determined during the 12-month follow-up period. The study covariates were ascertained during the 12 months before the index event. ExposureHospital-integration status of the treating physician during follow-up. Main Outcomes and MeasuresPostindex CR participation was determined by qualifying procedure codes on outpatient and carrier claims. ResultsThe study consisted of 28 596 Medicare patients eligible for CR. Their mean (SD) age was 74.0 (9.6) years; 16 839 (58.9%) were male. A total of 9037 patients (31.6%) were treated by a hospital-integrated physician, of which 2995 (33.1%) received CR during follow-up. Logistic regression via propensity score weighting showed that having a hospital-integrated physician was associated with an 11% increase in the odds of receiving CR (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18). Additionally, CR participation was associated with a 14% decrease in the odds of recurrent cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91). The findings of this cohort study suggest that hospital integration has the potential to facilitate greater CR participation and improve heart care. Several factors may help explain this positive association, including enhanced care coordination and value-based payment policies. Further research is needed to assess the association of integration with other appropriate high-quality care activities. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Objectives Electronic health record systems are increasingly used to send messages to physicians, but research on physicians’ inbox use patterns is limited. This study’s aims were to (1) quantify the time primary care physicians (PCPs) spend managing inboxes; (2) describe daily patterns of inbox use; (3) investigate which types of messages consume the most time; and (4) identify factors associated with inbox work duration. Materials and Methods We analyzed 1 month of electronic inbox data for 1275 PCPs in a large medical group and linked these data with physicians’ demographic data. Results PCPs spent an average of 52 minutes on inbox management on workdays, including 19 minutes (37%) outside work hours. Temporal patterns of electronic inbox use differed from other EHR functions such as charting. Patient-initiated messages (28%) and results (29%) accounted for the most inbox work time. PCPs with higher inbox work duration were more likely to be female (P < .001), have more patient encounters (P < .001), have older patients (P < .001), spend proportionally more time on patient messages (P < .001), and spend more time per message (P < .001). Compared with PCPs with the lowest duration of time on inbox work, PCPs with the highest duration had more message views per workday (200 vs 109; P < .001) and spent more time on the inbox outside work hours (30 minutes vs 9.7 minutes; P < .001). Conclusions Electronic inbox work by PCPs requires roughly an hour per workday, much of which occurs outside scheduled work hours. Interventions to assist PCPs in handling patient-initiated messages and results may help alleviate inbox workload. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Ethnicity & Disease)
    null (Ed.)
    Objective: To identify differences in short-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to various racial/ethnic groups.Design: Analysis of Cerner de-identified COVID-19 dataset.Setting: A total of 62 health care facilities.Participants: The cohort included 49,277 adult COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized from December 1, 2019 to November 13, 2020.Methods: We compared patients’ age, gender, individual components of Charl­son and Elixhauser comorbidities, medical complications, use of do-not-resuscitate, use of palliative care, and socioeconomic status between various racial and/or ethnic groups. We further compared the rates of in-hos­pital mortality and non-routine discharges between various racial and/or ethnic groups.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortali­ty. The secondary outcome was non-routine discharge (discharge to destinations other than home, such as short-term hospitals or other facilities including intermediate care and skilled nursing homes).Results: Compared with White patients, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among African American (OR 1.5; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), Hispanic (OR1.4; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), and Asian or Pacific Islander (OR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.1-1.9, P=.002) patients after adjustment for age and gender, Elixhauser comorbidities, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, and socioeconomic status.Conclusions: Our study found that, among hospitalized patients with COVID-2019, African American, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander patients had increased mortality compared with White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and do-not-resuscitate/pallia­tive care status. Our findings add additional perspective to other recent studies. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(3):389-398; doi:10.18865/ed.31.3.389 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email