This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Physician rating websites have been gaining in importance in both practice and research. However, no evidence is available concerning patients’ ratings of dentists on physician rating websites.
The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive analysis of the ratings of dentists on a German physician rating website over a 2-year period.
All dentist ratings on a German physician rating website (Jameda) from 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The available dataset contained 76,456 ratings of 23,902 dentists from 72,758 patients. Additional information included the overall score and subscores for 5 mandatory questions, the medical specialty and gender of the dentists, and the age, gender, and health insurance status of the patients. Statistical analysis was conducted using the median test and the Kendall tau-b test.
During the study period, 44.57% (23,902/53,626) of all dentists in Germany were evaluated on the physician rating website, Jameda. The number of ratings rose from 28,843 in 2012 to 47,613 in 2013, representing an increase of 65.08%. In detail, 45.37% (10,845/23,902) of dentists were rated once, 43.41% (10,376/23,902) between 2 and 5 times, and 11.21% (2681/23,902) more than 6 times (mean 3.16, SD 5.57). Approximately 90% (21,324/23,902, 89.21%) of dentists received a very good or good overall rating, whereas only 3.02% (721/23,902) were rated with the lowest scores. Better ratings were given either by female or older patients, or by those covered by private health insurance. The best-rated specialty was pediatric dentistry; the lowest ratings were given to orthodontists. Finally, dentists were rated slightly lower in 2013 compared to 2012 (
The rise in the number of ratings for dentists demonstrates the increasing popularity of physician rating websites and the need for information about health care providers. Future research should assess whether social media, especially Web-based ratings, are suitable in practice for patients and other stakeholders in health care (eg, insurance providers) to reflect the clinical quality of care.
Over the past 20 years, the Internet has increasingly gained in importance and has acquired a key role in society as a central means of communications and an information platform. At the beginning of 2014, 76.6% of the German population aged 10 years or older used the Internet. Among the group of users aged 10-39 years, this number amounted to nearly 100% [
This may also reflect the trend in patients wishing to be informed more effectively about the content and quality of medical care provision. However, a balanced and robust judgment of the quality of medical treatment is rarely possible for patients because of a lack of publicly accessible information [
Although the existing research has increasingly dealt with patient satisfaction, an overall supply of information about doctors, practices, or hospitals is still missing [
This study extends the results of a previous study in which ratings for all German physicians from the German outpatient sector (except dentists) were evaluated [
The total number of ratings in 2012 and 2013 was 76,456 ratings, which were given by 72,758 patients for 23,902 dentists. The dataset contained information concerning gender, age, and medical specification of the dentists, as well as gender, age, and the type of health insurance of the patients. The rating system on Jameda consists of 5 questions, each rated according to the grading system in German schools from 1=very good to 6=insufficient. The questions are about (1) satisfaction with the treatment offered (Q1), (2) information and presentation of facts with regard to illness and treatment (Q2), (3) the relationship of trust with the dentist (Q3), (4) the amount of time spent on a patient’s concerns (Q4), and (5) the friendliness of the dentist (Q5). An average score is derived subsequently on the basis of the 5 single grades.
All statistical analyses of the data were carried out with SPSS v21.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). The median test was applied to nonparametric data of groups with different distributions. The Kendall tau-b test was used to analyze the correlation between both the performance of a dentist and the number of ratings per dentist and the number of ratings per patient compared to the mean overall performance given by this patient. Differences were considered to be significant if
The number of dentist ratings posted on the physician rating website Jameda increased from 28,843 in 2012 to 47,613 in 2013, representing an increase of approximately 65.08%. See
The distribution of the ratings concerning dental treatment revealed that 89.21% (21,324/23,902) of the rated dentists received a 1=very good or 2=good overall evaluation, only 3.02% (721/23,902) were rated 5=deficient or 6=insufficient according to the grading system used in German schools (
Evaluation results of all rated dentists on Jameda from 2012-2013 (N=23,902).
Performance range | Overall performance | Question (Q)a | |||||
|
|
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 18,649 (78.02) | 18,302 (76.57) | 17,528 (73.33) | 17,706 (74.08) | 17,878 (74.80) | 18,979 (79.40) |
|
2 | 2675 (11.19) | 2846 (11.91) | 3714 (15.53) | 3039 (12.71) | 3498 (14.63) | 2848 (11.89) |
|
3 | 1262 (5.28) | 1088 (4.55) | 1205 (5.04) | 1212 (5.07) | 1181 (4.94) | 974 (4.07) |
|
4 | 592 (2.48) | 781 (3.27) | 734 (3.07) | 874 (3.66) | 671 (2.81) | 597 (2.50) |
|
5 | 492 (2.06) | 356 (1.49) | 363 (1.52) | 401 (1.68) | 331 (1.38) | 217 (0.91) |
|
6 | 229 (1.00) | 529 (2.21) | 358 (1.50) | 670 (2.80) | 343 (1.44) | 287 (1.20) |
Mean (SD) | 1.42 (0.97) | 1.48 (1.08) | 1.48 (1.01) | 1.55 (1.15) | 1.46 (0.98) | 1.37 (0.90) | |
Median (range) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | 1.00 (1.00-6.00) | |
Skewness | 2.79 | 2.83 | 2.77 | 2.62 | 2.89 | 3.28 | |
Kurtosis | 7.79 | 7.91 | 8.04 | 6.56 | 8.81 | 11.73 |
a Q1: satisfaction with the treatment by the dentist; Q2: education about the illness and treatment; Q3: relationship of trust with the dentist; Q4: time the physician spent for the patient´s concerns; Q5: friendliness of the dentist.
b German school-based rating system (1=very good; 2=good; 3=satisfactory; 4=sufficient; 5=deficient; 6=insufficient).
Screenshot of a dentist search on the German physician ratings website, Jameda (translated from German to English with Google Translate).
Overview of the rating distribution for both physicians and patients.
With regard to gender, male dentists were more likely to be rated compared to their female counterparts (
Further analysis was carried out on the basis of ratings covering all dental subdisciplines concerning the entire 2-year study period (2012 and 2013). Regarding the overall rating for dental subdisciplines, pediatric dentists and periodontologists received significantly better ratings than orthodontists did.
Finally, we assessed the correlation between the mean overall performance of a dentist and the number of ratings per dentist. In
Rating differences for dentist and patient characteristics from 2012-2013.
Characteristics | n | >Median, n | ≤Median, n (%) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
.001 | |
|
|
Female | 7621 | 3462 | 4159 (54.57) |
|
|
|
Male | 16,276 | 7784 | 8492 (52.17) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<.001 | |
|
|
Pediatric dentistry | 84 | 36 | 48 (57.14) |
|
|
|
Not specified | 12,608 | 5535 | 7073 (56.10) |
|
|
|
Periodontology | 4556 | 2060 | 2496 (54.78) |
|
|
|
Naturopathy | 159 | 75 | 84 (52.83) |
|
|
|
Endontology | 275 | 132 | 143 (52.00) |
|
|
|
Oral surgery | 715 | 354 | 361 (50.49) |
|
|
|
Implantology | 3614 | 1925 | 1689 (46.73) |
|
|
|
Esthetic dentistry | 562 | 332 | 230 (40.93) |
|
|
|
Orthodontics | 1284 | 771 | 513 (39.95) |
|
|
|
Laser dentistry | 45 | 29 | 16 (35.56) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
<.001 | |
|
|
Female | 26,915 | 6426 | 20,489 (76.12) |
|
|
|
Male | 22,550 | 5811 | 16,739 (74.23) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.001 | |
|
|
<30 | 8746 | 2727 | 6024 (68.87) |
|
|
|
30-50 | 25,009 | 6116 | 18,898 (75.56) |
|
|
|
>51 | 12,908 | 2645 | 10,263 (79.51) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.001 | |
|
|
Statutory health insurance | 37,283 | 9408 | 27,875 (74.77) |
|
|
|
Private health insurance | 9995 | 2360 | 7635 (76.39) |
|
aMedian test: a nonparametric test that is used to determine whether the medians of two or more groups differ.
Rating differences of dentists for the time period of 2012-2013.
Characteristics | 2012 | 2013 |
|
|||
|
n | ≤Median, n (%) | n | ≤Median, n (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female | 7711 | 5643 (73.18) | 12,833 | 9221 (71.85) | .04 |
|
Male | 21,105 | 15,674 (74.27) | 34,772 | 25,610 (73.65) | .11 |
|
Total | 28,843 | 21,342 (73.99) | 47,613 | 34,836 (73.16) | .01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pediatric dentistry | 131 | 113 (86.26) | 298 | 242 (81.21) | .26 |
|
Not specified | 11,952 | 8738 (73.11) | 18,223 | 13,193 (72.40) | .18 |
|
Periodontology | 4840 | 3561 (73.57) | 7565 | 5437 (71.87) | .04 |
|
Naturopathy | 199 | 149 (74.87) | 297 | 219 (73.74) | .86 |
|
Endontology | 464 | 389 (83.84) | 1033 | 817 (79.09) | .04 |
|
Oral surgery | 1120 | 834 (74.46) | 2051 | 1571 (76.60) | .19 |
|
Implantology | 6564 | 5018 (76.45) | 11,470 | 8633 (75.27) | .08 |
|
Esthetic dentistry | 1662 | 1344 (80.87) | 3352 | 2651 (79.09) | .15 |
|
Orthodontics | 1723 | 1050 (60.94) | 3073 | 1882 (61.24) | .86 |
|
Laser dentistry | 187 | 145 (77.54) | 250 | 191 (76.40) | .87 |
Scatterplot (bivariate) of the number of ratings per dentist (left) and patient (right) with the mean overall performance for a rated dentist.
Currently, most patients seek advice from friends or relatives, or choose a doctor within their vicinity when searching for a physician [
According to our results, 33.69% (18,069/53,626) of all German dentists have been rated at least once in 2013. Comparing this figure with the results of the previously published study [
The mean number of ratings per dentist was 2.06 (SD 2.99) in 2012, slightly lower than for other German physicians at 2.37 [
In general, these results show positive rating results for German dentists (eg, 89.21% of all ratings were in the top 2 categories). These results are in-line with the results of a nationwide survey on public attitude to, and assessment of, dental care in Germany. This indicates that dentists enjoy a very good reputation. On a 4-stage scale, 91% of the people questioned are either “rather satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their dentist [
In our study, the median score of all questions was 1.00 (mean 1.42) which is in-line with the other literature. Strech and Reimann [
Female dentists received better ratings. This might be explained by the fact that female physicians engage in significantly more active partnership behaviors, positive talk, psychosocial counseling, psychosocial question asking, and emotionally focused talk. Medical visits were shown to be 2 minutes longer with female physicians than those with male physicians [
Furthermore, our analysis revealed a slight but significant deterioration in ratings (
Age distribution of the rating patients according to the dental subdisciplines (N=20,194).
Dental discipline | Age range (years), n (%) | ||
|
<30 | 30-50 | ≥50 |
Pediatric dentistry | 13 (16.46) | 51 (64.56) | 15 (18.99) |
Not specified | 1531 (18.24) | 4634 (55.21) | 2228 (26.55) |
Periodontology | 574 (16.70) | 1948 (56.68) | 915 (26.62) |
Naturopathy | 24 (15.29) | 77 (49.04) | 56 (35.67) |
Endontology | 64 (18.88) | 202 (59.59) | 73 (21.53) |
Oral surgery | 169 (20.86) | 397 (49.01) | 244 (30.12) |
Implantology | 733 (15.78) | 2489 (53.57) | 1424 (30.65) |
Esthetic dentistry | 192 (17.07) | 664 (59.02) | 269 (23.91) |
Orthodontics | 476 (44.74) | 514 (48.31) | 74 (6.95) |
Laser dentistry | 24 (16.78) | 89 (62.24) | 30 (20.98) |
Total | 3801 (18.82) | 11,065 (54.79) | 5328 (26.38) |
The limitations to this study are as follows. Although the study was based on a large dataset and its results are in-line with other studies, the major limitation is the fact that only 1 physician rating website was included in our analysis; evaluations of other physician rating websites could lead to different results. Future studies should aim at comparing different German physician rating websites and analyzing the current number of ratings and the number of physicians rated, but also differences in rating patients and rated physicians. Applying those criteria might lead to other “most important” German physician rating websites. Unfortunately, a more in-depth analysis regarding the use of physician rating websites according to sociodemographic data was not possible because of a lack of data. In this context, a recently published study analyzing the variables which influence the usage of physician rating websites could demonstrate that sociodemographic variables alone do not sufficiently predict use or nonuse of physician rating websites; specific psychographic variables and health status additionally need to be taken into account [
In conclusion, an increasing trend toward the rating of physicians on a physician rating website in Germany is shown. The total number of ratings rose by 65.08% between 2012 and 2013. So far, 44.57% of all German dentists have been evaluated by patients at least once. However, this means that more than half of dentists in Germany are still without any evaluation. The increase in ratings over the 2-year study period indicates a growing interest among the population to evaluate the quality of oral health care providers. Many of the results presented here are in-line with the other national and international literature in this area. The overall satisfaction of patients with dentists seems to be comparable to other medical specialties. In a patient-centered approach, it is essential to assess the quality of health care from a patient’s perspective. Information available on social media (such as physician rating websites) has gained more attention in the literature recently (eg, [
National Health Service
The authors would like to thank Dr Philipp Goos and Ms Elke Ruppert from Jameda for the provision of the data. For assistance in translation, the authors thank Mr Wolfgang Toelch.
None declared.