FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3039556402> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3039556402 endingPage "1458" @default.
• W3039556402 startingPage "1455" @default.
• W3039556402 abstract "To the Editor: Social media (SM) activity is increasing, including its use in health care decision making.1Riemer C. Doctor M. Dellavalle R.P. Analysis of online ratings of dermatologists.JAMA Dermatol. 2016; 152: 218-219Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The effect of SM on physician ratings has been explored across specialties2Donnally 3rd, C.J. Li D.J. Maguire Jr., J.A. et al.How social media, training, and demographics influence online reviews across three leading review websites for spine surgeons.Spine J. 2018; 18: 2081-2090Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 3Trehan S.K. Daluiski A. Online patient ratings: why they matter and what they mean.J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41: 316-319Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar, 4Dorfman R.G. Mahmood E. Ren A. et al.Google ranking of plastic surgeons values social media presence over academic pedigree and experience.Aesthet Surg J. 2019; 39: 447-451Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar; however, its impact on clinical practice has not been studied in dermatology. We evaluated factors associated with patient satisfaction across physician rating websites (PRWs), the prevalence of SM use, and the relationship between SM use and online physician ratings for dermatologists. We identified fully trained members of the American Academy of Dermatology actively practicing in Manhattan between August 1 and November 1, 2018, from the Academy's online directory. Physician profiles were reviewed on 3 publicly available PRWs: Healthgrades.com (HG), Vitals.com (V), and Google.com (G) between March 12 and April 21, 2019. Data obtained included medical degree, graduation year, institution type, fellowship training, patient-reported wait times, presence of a care philosophy, and Castle Connolly status, as well as overall scores and numbers of ratings and comments. Physicians were searched on Google.com, and the first 10 results were reviewed for SM presence and personal and/or institutional websites. Differences between physician characteristics and online PRW score means were assessed using chi-square tests and t tests, respectively. Linear regression analysis was used to assess associations between ratings and SM presence, training, practice type, and graduation year. Of the 412 dermatologists, 91% had MD degrees, 70% worked in private practice, and 65% were not fellowship trained. Nearly all (94.9%) had personal or institutional websites, and nearly half (45.6%) had SM presence. Facebook was the most widely used platform (35.9%), followed by Instagram (30.3%) and Twitter (25%) (Supplemental Table I; available via Mendeley at http://doi.org/10.17632/bf994yffxz.2). The average number ± standard deviation of ratings per dermatologist was 11.0 ± 16.1 for HG, 19.4 ± 24.1 for V, and 9.5 ± 30.5 for G. The average overall score (range, 0-5) was 3.5 ± 1.6 for HG, 3.7 ± 2.1 for V, and 3.1 ± 2.1 for G. Dermatologists in private practice received more HG and G ratings (P < .0001) and more HG comments (P < .05) than those in academia. Dermatologists who graduated residency before 2000 had more HG and V ratings than those who graduated after (P < .0001) yet were less likely to use Instagram (P < .05). Dermatologists with SM presence had more ratings and comments on HG and V (P < .001) and higher overall scores on HG and G (P < .001). Dermatologists with professional websites had higher overall HG scores (P < .0001) (Table I). SM presence was associated with HG and G ratings after accounting for reported physician characteristics (Table II).Table IData from online physician-rating websites, by social media presenceWebsitesSocial media presenceP valueYes (n = 180)No (n = 204)Healthgrades, mean ± SD Overall rating3.9 ± 1.23.4 ± 1.6.0005 Number of ratings13.4 ± 15.37.6 ± 9.2<.0001 Number of comments4.6 ± 8.22.2 ± 4.0.0002Vitals, mean ± SD Overall rating4.0 ± 2.63.7 ± 1.5.1673 Number of ratings20.4 ± 19.813.9 ± 14.9.0002 Number of comments10.7 ± 16.05.8 ± 9.6.0001Google, mean ± SD Overall rating4.6 ± 0.64.2 ± 1.0.0002 Number of ratings11.6 ± 18.33.5 ± 6.5<.0001Care philosophy, n Yes4121.0004 No141195Wait time, minutes 0-105552 10-158787 16-302840 >3013.4134Castle Connolly, n Yes5647.0472 No131173Bold values indicate statistical significance (P < .05).SD, Standard deviation. Open table in a new tab Table IILinear regression analysis for overall ratings across physician-rating websites and social media presence, practice type, and graduation yearPhysician informationUnivariate parameter estimate (SD)Univariate P valueMultivariate parameter estimate (SD)Multivariate P valueHealthgrades overall rating (n = 381) Degree0.004 (0.14).98−0.005 (0.14)>.99 Fellowship−0.17 (0.15).43−0.17 (0.15).26 Institution type0.02 (0.17).210.01 (0.17).95 Graduation year0.13 (0.15).460.14 (0.15).35 Website−0.03 (0.01)<.05−0.03 (0.15).03 Social media presence0.51 (0.15)<.00010.34 (0.16).03 Website activity∗Number of ratings and comments on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google, respectively.Number of ratings0.02 (0.01)<.0010.02 (0.01)<.01Number of comments0.01 (0.02)<.050.01 (0.02).53Vitals overall rating (n = 388) Degree0.02 (0.21).910.11 (0.22).61 Fellowship0.18 (0.22).410.16 (0.23).49 Institution type0.11 (0.23).640.03 (0.25).91 Graduation year−0.39 (0.21).07−0.34 (0.22).13 Website−0.04 (0.02).08−0.03 (0.02).14 Social media presence0.29 (0.21).170.25 (0.24).3 Website activity∗Number of ratings and comments on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google, respectively.Number of ratings0.02 (0.01)<.01−0.02 (0.02).25Number of comments0.01 (0.01).080.03 (0.01)<.04Google overall rating (n = 272) Degree−0.04 (0.10).680.01 (0.11).93 Fellowship0.21 (0.11)<.050.16 (0.11).14 Institution type0.15 (0.12).210.02 (0.13).91 Graduation year0.11 (0.10).260.07 (0.10).5 Website0.08 (0.07).280.01 (0.08).93 Social media presence0.38 (0.20)<.00010.34 (0.12)<.01 Website activity∗Number of ratings and comments on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google, respectively.Number of ratings0.004 (0.003).170.001 (0.003).78Number of comments————Bold values indicate statistical significance (P < .05).SD, Standard deviation.∗ Number of ratings and comments on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google, respectively. Open table in a new tab Bold values indicate statistical significance (P < .05). SD, Standard deviation. Bold values indicate statistical significance (P < .05). SD, Standard deviation. SM has revolutionized information gathering in health care. We found that dermatologists with SM presence had more online ratings and higher overall scores on HG and G, suggesting that patients may feel more engaged with physicians who use SM. Private practitioners had more ratings on HG and V than academicians, perhaps due to higher patient volume and greater likelihood of using systems that encourage patient ratings. Physicians who have been in practice longer had more reviews, likely due to higher cumulative patient volume. Study limitations include geographic constraint and reliance on a single measurement occasion. In conclusion, patient ratings, SM presence, practice setting, and duration of practice contribute to higher ratings, more comments, and higher overall scores for dermatologists." @default.
• W3039556402 created "2020-07-10" @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5033568770 @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5035139239 @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5039227240 @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5045039104 @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5059005380 @default.
• W3039556402 creator A5081221518 @default.
• W3039556402 date "2021-05-01" @default.
• W3039556402 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3039556402 title "Social media activity is associated with higher physician ratings by patients" @default.
• W3039556402 cites W2206629792 @default.
• W3039556402 cites W2226872032 @default.
• W3039556402 cites W2800710326 @default.
• W3039556402 cites W2896948885 @default.
• W3039556402 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.1015" @default.
• W3039556402 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32622896" @default.
• W3039556402 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3039556402 type Work @default.
• W3039556402 sameAs 3039556402 @default.
• W3039556402 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W3039556402 countsByYear W30395564022021 @default.
• W3039556402 countsByYear W30395564022022 @default.
• W3039556402 countsByYear W30395564022023 @default.
• W3039556402 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5033568770 @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5035139239 @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5039227240 @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5045039104 @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5059005380 @default.
• W3039556402 hasAuthorship W3039556402A5081221518 @default.
• W3039556402 hasBestOaLocation W30395564021 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C2777683733 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C2780084366 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C518677369 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C111919701 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C136764020 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C144024400 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C149923435 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C17744445 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C199539241 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C2777683733 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C2779473830 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C2780084366 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C41008148 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C512399662 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C518677369 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C71924100 @default.
• W3039556402 hasConceptScore W3039556402C83867959 @default.
• W3039556402 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W3039556402 hasLocation W30395564021 @default.
• W3039556402 hasOpenAccess W3039556402 @default.
• W3039556402 hasPrimaryLocation W30395564021 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W2262021088 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W2780834280 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W2917429457 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W3082933616 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W3138055934 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W4249927502 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W4253370514 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W4282822737 @default.
• W3039556402 hasRelatedWork W4311068385 @default.
• W3039556402 hasVolume "84" @default.
• W3039556402 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3039556402 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3039556402 magId "3039556402" @default.
• W3039556402 workType "article" @default.