Meleeka Akbarpour, Karen Tawk, Madelyn Frank, Alizah S Gomez, Navid Mostaghni, Mehdi Abouzari
{"title":"评估喉科医生在医生评论网站上的评分。","authors":"Meleeka Akbarpour, Karen Tawk, Madelyn Frank, Alizah S Gomez, Navid Mostaghni, Mehdi Abouzari","doi":"10.1002/wjo2.95","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on laryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All the American Laryngological Association (ALA) members were queried across several online platforms. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 331 ALA members, 256 (77%) were rated on at least one online platform. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.39 ± 0.61 (range: 1.00-5.00). Specific positive ratings including \"bedside manners,\" \"diagnostic accuracy,\" \"adequate time spent with patient,\" \"appropriate follow-up,\" and \"physician timeliness\" had significant positive correlations to overall ratings, by Pearson's correlation (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Long wait times had significant negative correlations to overall ratings (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Online ratings and comments for laryngologists are significantly influenced by patient perceptions of bedside manner, physician competence, and time spent with the patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":49691,"journal":{"name":"Plant Ecology & Diversity","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10979035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.\",\"authors\":\"Meleeka Akbarpour, Karen Tawk, Madelyn Frank, Alizah S Gomez, Navid Mostaghni, Mehdi Abouzari\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wjo2.95\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on laryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All the American Laryngological Association (ALA) members were queried across several online platforms. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 331 ALA members, 256 (77%) were rated on at least one online platform. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.39 ± 0.61 (range: 1.00-5.00). Specific positive ratings including \\\"bedside manners,\\\" \\\"diagnostic accuracy,\\\" \\\"adequate time spent with patient,\\\" \\\"appropriate follow-up,\\\" and \\\"physician timeliness\\\" had significant positive correlations to overall ratings, by Pearson's correlation (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Long wait times had significant negative correlations to overall ratings (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Online ratings and comments for laryngologists are significantly influenced by patient perceptions of bedside manner, physician competence, and time spent with the patient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plant Ecology & Diversity\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10979035/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plant Ecology & Diversity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjo2.95\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PLANT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plant Ecology & Diversity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjo2.95","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评估有关喉科专家的在线评分和评论，并确定与较高评分相关的因素：通过多个在线平台对美国喉科学协会（ALA）的所有会员进行了调查。对评分进行了标准化处理，以利克特五点量表进行比较。评分根据背景和积极/消极方面进行分类：在 331 名 ALA 会员中，有 256 人（77%）至少在一个在线平台上获得了评分。在所有平台上，平均总体评分为 4.39 ± 0.61（范围：1.00-5.00）。根据皮尔逊相关性，"床边礼仪"、"诊断准确性"、"与患者相处时间充足"、"适当的随访 "和 "医生的及时性 "等具体的正面评分与总体评分有显著的正相关性（P P 结论：患者对喉科医生的床边态度、医生能力和与患者共处时间的看法会对在线评分和评论产生重大影响。
Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.
Objective: To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on laryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.
Methods: All the American Laryngological Association (ALA) members were queried across several online platforms. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspects.
Results: Of the 331 ALA members, 256 (77%) were rated on at least one online platform. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.39 ± 0.61 (range: 1.00-5.00). Specific positive ratings including "bedside manners," "diagnostic accuracy," "adequate time spent with patient," "appropriate follow-up," and "physician timeliness" had significant positive correlations to overall ratings, by Pearson's correlation (P < 0.001). Long wait times had significant negative correlations to overall ratings (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Online ratings and comments for laryngologists are significantly influenced by patient perceptions of bedside manner, physician competence, and time spent with the patient.
期刊介绍：
Plant Ecology and Diversity is an international journal for communicating results and novel ideas in plant science, in print and on-line, six times a year. All areas of plant biology relating to ecology, evolution and diversity are of interest, including those which explicitly deal with today''s highly topical themes, such as biodiversity, conservation and global change. We consider submissions that address fundamental questions which are pertinent to contemporary plant science. Articles concerning extreme environments world-wide are particularly welcome.
Plant Ecology and Diversity considers for publication original research articles, short communications, reviews, and scientific correspondence that explore thought-provoking ideas.
To aid redressing ‘publication bias’ the journal is unique in reporting, in the form of short communications, ‘negative results’ and ‘repeat experiments’ that test ecological theories experimentally, in theoretically flawless and methodologically sound papers. Research reviews and method papers, are also encouraged.
Plant Ecology & Diversity publishes high-quality and topical research that demonstrates solid scholarship. As such, the journal does not publish purely descriptive papers. Submissions are required to focus on research topics that are broad in their scope and thus provide new insights and contribute to theory. The original research should address clear hypotheses that test theory or questions and offer new insights on topics of interest to an international readership.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
