IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v181y2017icp1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Menon, Alka V.

Abstract

This article analyzes the substance and perception of online physician reviews, which are qualitative and quantitative assessments of physicians written and shared by patients, in the case of U.S. cosmetic surgery. Like other cash-pay medical specialties, cosmetic surgery is elective and paid for largely out of pocket, with patients having latitude in their choice of surgeon. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews, observations of an American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery professional meeting, and online reviews from the platforms RealSelf and Yelp, I identify two interdependent contributors to physician authority: reputation and expertise. I argue that surgeons see reviews overwhelmingly as a threat to their reputation, even as actual review content often positively reinforces physician expertise and enhances physician reputation. I show that most online reviews linked to interview participants are positive, according considerable deference to surgeons. Reviews add patients' embodied and consumer expertise as a circumscribed supplement to surgeons’ technical expertise. Moreover, reviews change the doctor-patient relationship by putting it on display for a larger audience of prospective patients, enabling patients and review platforms to affect physician reputation. Surgeons report changing how they practice to establish and maintain their reputations. This research demonstrates how physician authority in medical consumerist contexts is a product of reputation as well as expertise. Consumerism changes the doctor-patient relationship and makes surgeons feel diminished authority by dint of their reputational vulnerability to online reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Menon, Alka V., 2017. "Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1-8.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:181:y:2017:i:c:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617302022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fox, N.J. & Ward, K.J. & O'Rourke, A.J., 2005. "The 'expert patient': empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1299-1309, March.
    2. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    3. Brady, Ellen & Segar, Julia & Sanders, Caroline, 2016. "“You get to know the people and whether they’re talking sense or not”: Negotiating trust on health-related forums," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 151-157.
    4. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Adams, Samantha A., 2011. "Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: The reflexive patient and "share-your-experience" websites," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1069-1076, April.
    6. Lupton, Deborah, 1997. "Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 373-381, August.
    7. Foster, Drew, 2016. "‘Keep complaining til someone listens’: Exchanges of tacit healthcare knowledge in online illness communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 25-32.
    8. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mazanderani, Fadhila & Kirkpatrick, Susan F. & Ziebland, Sue & Locock, Louise & Powell, John, 2021. "Caring for care: Online feedback in the context of public healthcare services," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    2. Arendt, Florian & Forrai, Michaela & Findl, Oliver, 2020. "Dealing with negative reviews on physician-rating websites: An experimental test of how physicians can prevent reputational damage via effective response strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Jean-Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without legitimacy? Online consumer reviews in the restaurant industry," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(5), pages 458-475, September.
    3. Jean Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without Legitimacy? Online Consumer Reviews in the Restaurant Industry," Post-Print hal-03389275, HAL.
    4. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Marin, Alejandra & Dass, Mayukh & Boal, Kimberly, 2019. "Critic-buyer effects on valuation of ambiguously appraised products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 45-55.
    6. Lugosi, Peter, 2016. "Socio-technological authentication," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 100-113.
    7. Francesca Bellesia & Elisa Mattarelli & Fabiola Bertolotti, 2023. "Algorithms and their Affordances: How Crowdworkers Manage Algorithmic Scores in Online Labour Markets," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-37, January.
    8. Power, Michael, 2021. "Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: organizations and the logic of the audit trail," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100243, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5fb16v625i8vdbgdiskfbht5i5 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    11. Franck Aggeri, 2017. "How can performativity contribute to management and organization research? Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework [Qu'est-ce que la performativité peut apporter aux recherches en managem," Post-Print hal-01609172, HAL.
    12. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Patrick Gregori & Patrick Holzmann, 2022. "Entrepreneurial practices and the constitution of environmental value for sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3302-3317, November.
    14. Ben W. Lewis & W. Chad Carlos, 2023. "The risk of being ranked: Investor response to marginal inclusion on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 117-140, January.
    15. Susan Scott & Wanda Orlikowski, 2022. "The Digital Undertow: How the Corollary Effects of Digital Transformation Affect Industry Standards," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 311-336, March.
    16. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    17. Alena Coblence & Luděk Sýkora, 2022. "THE PERFORMATIVITY OF METROPOLIZATION: How Material‐Discursive Practices Institutionalize the Prague Metropolitan Region," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 502-521, July.
    18. Hutter, Michael, 2021. "Three Modes of Valuation Practices in Art Games," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 85-119.
    19. Scott, Susan V. & Orlikowski, Wanda J., 2022. "The digital undertow: how the corollary effects of digital transformation affect industry standards," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112426, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
    21. Petrakaki, Dimitra & Hilberg, Eva & Waring, Justin, 2018. "Between empowerment and self-discipline: Governing patients' conduct through technological self-care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 146-153.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:181:y:2017:i:c:p:1-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.