Social media activity is associated with higher physician ratings by patients

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 dermatologists.JAMA Dermatol. 2016; 152: 218-219Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The effect SM on physician has been explored across specialties2Donnally 3rd, C.J. Li D.J. Maguire Jr., J.A. et al.How social media, training, and demographics influence reviews three leading review websites for spine surgeons.Spine J. 2018; 18: 2081-2090Abstract Full Text PDF (19) Scholar, 3Trehan S.K. Daluiski A. Online patient ratings: why they matter what mean.J Hand Surg Am. 41: 316-319Abstract (18) 4Dorfman R.G. Mahmood E. Ren al.Google ranking plastic surgeons values presence over academic pedigree experience.Aesthet 2019; 39: 447-451Crossref (24) Scholar; however, impact clinical practice not studied dermatology. We evaluated factors associated with satisfaction rating (PRWs), prevalence use, relationship between dermatologists. identified fully trained members American Academy Dermatology actively practicing Manhattan August 1 November 1, 2018, from Academy's directory. Physician profiles were reviewed 3 publicly available PRWs: Healthgrades.com (HG), Vitals.com (V), Google.com (G) March 12 April 21, 2019. Data obtained included medical degree, graduation year, institution type, fellowship patient-reported wait times, a philosophy, Castle Connolly status, as well overall scores numbers comments. Physicians searched Google.com, first 10 results personal and/or institutional websites. Differences characteristics PRW score means assessed using chi-square tests t tests, respectively. Linear regression analysis was used to assess associations presence, year. Of 412 dermatologists, 91% had MD degrees, 70% worked private practice, 65% trained. Nearly all (94.9%) or websites, nearly half (45.6%) presence. Facebook most widely platform (35.9%), followed by Instagram (30.3%) Twitter (25%) (Supplemental Table I; via Mendeley at http://doi.org/10.17632/bf994yffxz.2). average number ± standard deviation per dermatologist 11.0 16.1 HG, 19.4 24.1 V, 9.5 30.5 G. (range, 0-5) 3.5 1.6 3.7 2.1 3.1 Dermatologists received more HG G (P < .0001) comments .05) than those academia. who graduated residency before 2000 V after yet less likely .05). .001) higher .001). professional (Table I). accounting reported II).Table IData physician-rating presenceWebsitesSocial presenceP valueYes (n = 180)No 204)Healthgrades, mean SD Overall rating3.9 1.23.4 1.6.0005 Number ratings13.4 15.37.6 9.2<.0001 comments4.6 8.22.2 4.0.0002Vitals, rating4.0 2.63.7 1.5.1673 ratings20.4 19.813.9 14.9.0002 comments10.7 16.05.8 9.6.0001Google, rating4.6 0.64.2 1.0.0002 ratings11.6 18.33.5 6.5<.0001Care n Yes4121.0004 No141195Wait time, minutes 0-105552 10-158787 16-302840 >3013.4134Castle Connolly, Yes5647.0472 No131173Bold indicate statistical significance .05).SD, Standard deviation. Open table new tab IILinear yearPhysician informationUnivariate parameter estimate (SD)Univariate P valueMultivariate (SD)Multivariate valueHealthgrades 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 presence0.51 (0.15)<.00010.34 (0.16).03 Website activity∗Number Healthgrades, Vitals, Google, respectively.Number ratings0.02 (0.01)<.0010.02 (0.01)<.01Number comments0.01 (0.02)<.050.01 (0.02).53Vitals 388) Degree0.02 (0.21).910.11 (0.22).61 Fellowship0.18 (0.22).410.16 (0.23).49 type0.11 (0.23).640.03 (0.25).91 year−0.39 (0.21).07−0.34 (0.22).13 Website−0.04 (0.02).08−0.03 (0.02).14 presence0.29 (0.21).170.25 (0.24).3 (0.01)<.01−0.02 (0.02).25Number (0.01).080.03 (0.01)<.04Google 272) Degree−0.04 (0.10).680.01 (0.11).93 Fellowship0.21 (0.11)<.050.16 (0.11).14 type0.15 (0.12).210.02 (0.13).91 year0.11 (0.10).260.07 (0.10).5 Website0.08 (0.07).280.01 (0.08).93 presence0.38 (0.20)<.00010.34 (0.12)<.01 ratings0.004 (0.003).170.001 (0.003).78Number comments————Bold deviation.∗ Bold SD, revolutionized information gathering care. found that dermatologists G, suggesting patients may feel engaged physicians SM. Private practitioners academicians, perhaps due volume greater likelihood systems encourage ratings. have longer reviews, cumulative volume. Study limitations include geographic constraint reliance single measurement occasion. In conclusion, ratings, setting, duration contribute comments,