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.

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM to 12:00 PM ET on Tuesday, March 25 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

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 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
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, 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
  4. ; ; ; ; ; (, JAMA Network Open)
    ImportanceScreening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer in randomized clinical trials in which the rate of adherence to follow-up recommendations was over 90%; however, adherence to Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting &amp; Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations has been low in practice. Identifying patients who are at risk of being nonadherent to screening recommendations may enable personalized outreach to improve overall screening adherence. ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with patient nonadherence to Lung-RADS recommendations across multiple screening time points. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was conducted at a single US academic medical center across 10 geographically distributed sites where lung cancer screening is offered. The study enrolled individuals who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer between July 31, 2013, and November 30, 2021. ExposuresLow-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was nonadherence to follow-up recommendations for lung cancer screening, defined as failing to complete a recommended or more invasive follow-up examination (ie, diagnostic dose CT, positron emission tomography–CT, or tissue sampling vs low-dose CT) within 15 months (Lung-RADS score, 1 or 2), 9 months (Lung-RADS score, 3), 5 months (Lung-RADS score, 4A), or 3 months (Lung-RADS score, 4B/X). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with patient nonadherence to baseline Lung-RADS recommendations. A generalized estimating equations model was used to assess whether the pattern of longitudinal Lung-RADS scores was associated with patient nonadherence over time. ResultsAmong 1979 included patients, 1111 (56.1%) were aged 65 years or older at baseline screening (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [6.6] years), and 1176 (59.4%) were male. The odds of being nonadherent were lower among patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 vs 3 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50), 4A (AOR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.33), or 4B/X, (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05-0.19); with a postgraduate vs college degree (AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92); with a family history of lung cancer vs no family history (AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93); with a high age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥4) vs a low score (0 or 1) (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98); in the high vs low income category (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98); and referred by physicians from pulmonary or thoracic-related departments vs another department (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73). Among 830 eligible patients who had completed at least 2 screening examinations, the adjusted odds of being nonadherent to Lung-RADS recommendations at the following screening were increased in patients with consecutive Lung-RADS scores of 1 to 2 (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this retrospective cohort study, patients with consecutive negative lung cancer screening results were more likely to be nonadherent with follow-up recommendations. These individuals are potential candidates for tailored outreach to improve adherence to recommended annual lung cancer screening. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology)
    Abstract Objective:To evaluate the economic costs of reducing the University of Virginia Hospital’s present “3-negative” policy, which continues methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) contact precautions until patients receive 3 consecutive negative test results, to either 2 or 1 negative. Design:Cost-effective analysis. Settings:The University of Virginia Hospital. Patients:The study included data from 41,216 patients from 2015 to 2019. Methods:We developed a model for MRSA transmission in the University of Virginia Hospital, accounting for both environmental contamination and interactions between patients and providers, which were derived from electronic health record (EHR) data. The model was fit to MRSA incidence over the study period under the current 3-negative clearance policy. A counterfactual simulation was used to estimate outcomes and costs for 2- and 1-negative policies compared with the current 3-negative policy. Results:Our findings suggest that 2-negative and 1-negative policies would have led to 6 (95% CI, −30 to 44;P< .001) and 17 (95% CI, −23 to 59; −10.1% to 25.8%;P< .001) more MRSA cases, respectively, at the hospital over the study period. Overall, the 1-negative policy has statistically significantly lower costs ($628,452; 95% CI, $513,592–$752,148) annually (P< .001) in US dollars, inflation-adjusted for 2023) than the 2-negative policy ($687,946; 95% CI, $562,522–$812,662) and 3-negative ($702,823; 95% CI, $577,277–$846,605). Conclusions:A single negative MRSA nares PCR test may provide sufficient evidence to discontinue MRSA contact precautions, and it may be the most cost-effective option. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email