IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v266y2020ics0277953620306419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dealing with negative reviews on physician-rating websites: An experimental test of how physicians can prevent reputational damage via effective response strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Arendt, Florian
  • Forrai, Michaela
  • Findl, Oliver

Abstract

•Patients are increasingly turning to physician-rating websites and write reviews.•Negative reviews can elicit reputational damage for physicians.•A web-based experiment was used to test the effectiveness of response strategies.•Physicians can prevent reputational damage by using effective response strategies.•We provide evidence-based action recommendations for physicians.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620306419
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620306419
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113422?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. Arendt, Florian & Scherr, Sebastian & Pasek, Josh & Jamieson, Patrick E. & Romer, Daniel, 2019. "Investigating harmful and helpful effects of watching season 2 of 13 Reasons Why: Results of a two-wave U.S. panel survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 489-498.
    2. 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.
    3. Arendt, Florian & Haim, Mario & Scherr, Sebastian, 2020. "Investigating Google's suicide-prevention efforts in celebrity suicides using agent-based testing: A cross-national study in four European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    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. Golmohammadi, Davood & Zhao, Lingyu & Dreyfus, David, 2023. "Using machine learning techniques to reduce uncertainty for outpatient appointment scheduling practices in outpatient clinics," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 120(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. Arendt, Florian & Haim, Mario & Scherr, Sebastian, 2020. "Investigating Google's suicide-prevention efforts in celebrity suicides using agent-based testing: A cross-national study in four European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    2. Martí Guinovart & Jesús Cobo & Alexandre González-Rodríguez & Isabel Parra-Uribe & Diego Palao, 2023. "Towards the Influence of Media on Suicidality: A Systematic Review of Netflix’s ‘Thirteen Reasons Why’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Hua Wang & Joseph Woelfel, 2022. "Netflix series 13 reasons why as compound suicide messages: using the Galileo model for cognitive mapping and precise measurements," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 751-768, April.
    4. 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).
    5. Lythreatis, Sophie & Singh, Sanjay Kumar & El-Kassar, Abdul-Nasser, 2022. "The digital divide: A review and future research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Daniel Romer, 2020. "Reanalysis of the Bridge et al. study of suicide following release of 13 Reasons Why," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-7, January.
    7. Fahey, Robert A. & Boo, Jeremy & Ueda, Michiko, 2020. "Covariance in diurnal patterns of suicide-related expressions on Twitter and recorded suicide deaths," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620306419. 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.