10.5826/dpc.1302a73
text/xml
2160-9381
2604
en
Shari Lipner
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Dermatology Practical & Conceptual
Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient Experiences and Perspectives
Text.Serial.Journal
https://dpcj.org/index.php/dpc
Commentary
2023-04-29
2022-05-21
2023-04-29
2023-05-31
e2023073
Dermatol Pract Concept
Shari Lipner
2023/04/29
10.5826/dpc.1302a73
e2023073
Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Dermatology, New York, NY, USA
2160-9381
en
e2023073
Riemer C, Doctor M, Dellavalle RP. Analysis of online ratings of dermatologists. JAMA dermatology. 2016;152(2):218-219.
Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient Experiences and Perspectives
https://dpcj.org/index.php/dpc/article/download/2604/2107
      Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist
     Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient
              Experiences and Perspectives
                                         Julianne M. Falotico1, Shari R. Lipner2


1 Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
2 Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Dermatology, New York, NY, USA



Citation: Falotico JM, Lipner SR. Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient
Experiences and Perspectives. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1302a73
Accepted: September 13, 2022; Published: April 2023
Copyright: ©2023 Falotico et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited.
Funding: None.
Competing Interests: Ms. Falotico has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Verrica,
Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Hexima.
Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication.
Corresponding Author: Shari R. Lipner MD, PhD 1305 York Avenue, NY, NY 10021. Phone: 646-962-3376 Fax: 646-962-0033
Email: shl9032@med.cornell.edu




Online physician reviews and ratings are becoming increas-               Therefore, healthcare versus general consumer websites may
ingly popular, potentially influencing prospective patients              more accurately reflect authentic patient experiences.
and their decisions regarding where to seek dermatologic                      Waqas et al [5] also analyzed dermatologist reviews
care [1]. Cosmetic dermatologists, in particular, may rely               across five websites and found no differences in achieving
heavily on online profiles to attract patients [2]. Previ-               higher ratings for males versus females [odds ratio (OR):1.56;
ous work found significantly higher proportions of nega-                 P = 0.226]. There was a greater likelihood of higher rat-
tive online reviews of dermatology (20.4%-32.7%) versus                  ings in dermatologist-dense areas (OR: 2.61; P = 0.48) and
non-dermatology (4.7%-8.5%) practices performing botu-                   lower ratings with increased years of experience (OR: 0.96;
linum toxin injections (P < 0.0001) [3]. In this commentary,             P = 0.006). Therefore, patients reported greater satisfaction
we review digital review trends and make recommendations                 with younger dermatologists in urban areas, which may be
to improve online reviews of board-certified dermatologists.             due to their spending more time with patients and using
    Waqas et al [4] analyzed online ratings of 167 dermatol-             newer technologies. We postulate that younger patients, who
ogists and found that the lowest average ratings in the most             are more comfortable using the internet, may be more likely
and least dermatologist-dense areas were on Yelp (3.61) and              to utilize online reviews. Older patients may need encourage-
Google (3.45), respectively. Ratings on healthcare versus                ment and guidance to write online reviews.
general consumer websites were closer to the overall average                  Trager et al [6] analyzed 12,272 online ratings of 187
(4.06) and had a higher degree of correlation across sites.              Mohs micrographic surgeons and found that of 5,255




Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073                                                                                  1
written comments, the majority (87%) were positive and            expectations may contribute to perceived experiences and
most discussed perceived experiences [50.2%; 95% confi-           dermatologist ratings.
dence interval (CI): 49%-52%] and bedside manner (33.2%;
95% CI: 32%-34%). Therefore, the content of written re-
                                                                  References
views may give insight into the things that matter most to
patients.                                                         1. Smith RJ, Lipoff JB. Evaluation of dermatology practice online
                                                                     reviews: lessons from qualitative analysis. JAMA Dermatol.
    Riemer et al [7] analyzed online ratings of 100 derma-
                                                                     2016;152(2):153-157. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.3950.
tologists, reporting that the mean ratings across all five web-
                                                                     PMID: 26606326.
sites were high (3.60-4.58). Zocdoc.com had significantly         2. Wang JV, Heitmiller K, Boen M, Saedi N. Fake Online Physi-
fewer negative comments than other websites (χ2 = 12.02;             cian Reviews in Aesthetic Dermatology: Bioethical and Pro-
P = 0.007) and had the highest overall total (1231) and mean         fessional Obligations. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47(5):748-749.
ratings per dermatologist (102.6), with notifications built in       DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002516. PMID: 33905402.
                                                                  3. Avila C, Pootrakul L, Shipp D, Massick S, Kaffenberger B. Der-
to solicit patient reviews. Therefore, encouraging patients to
                                                                     matologist online ratings for botulinum toxin injections are nu-
share their experiences may help negate the impact of outlier
                                                                     anced and may be misleading. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(5):
reviews when the overall volume is low.                              1313-1315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.045. PMID: 32956739.
    First impressions from online reviews may impact where        4. Waqas B, Cooley V, Lipner SR. Comparison of Dermatologist
patients choose dermatological care and current reviews may          Ratings on Health Care-Specific and General Consumer Web-
not be entirely indicative of true patient experiences. We sug-      sites. Cutis. 2021;107(4):182-184. DOI: 10.12788/cutis.0220.
                                                                     PMID: 34096845.
gest analyzing ratings and content on healthcare-specific ver-
                                                                  5. Waqas B, Cooley V, Lipner SR. Association of sex, location,
sus consumer websites to better gauge patient experiences
                                                                     and experience with online patient ratings of dermatologists.
and overall satisfaction. Since patients emphasize bedside           J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(3):954-955. DOI: 10.1016/j
manner in their reviews, delivering exceptional patient care         .jaad.2020.01.055. PMID: 32006602.
as well as clear communication and relatability will likely       6. Trager MH, Ensslin CE, Fan W, Samie FH. Factors impacting
improve patient satisfaction and translate to improved on-           patient ratings of Mohs micrographic surgeons: Lessons gleaned
                                                                     from analysis of 17,527 online reviews. J Am Acad Dermatol.
line ratings. Since the overwhelming majority of patients
                                                                     2020;83(6):1825-1827. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.05.082.
probably have positive visits with dermatologists, it is help-
                                                                     PMID: 32450101.
ful to encourage patients to write reviews and share their        7. Riemer C, Doctor M, Dellavalle RP. Analysis of Online Ratings
experiences. Future studies should analyze reviews in the            of Dermatologists. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(2):218-219.
context of patient demographics, as differing priorities and         DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.4991. PMID: 26677133.




2                                                                       Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073
