Influence of Age, Sex, and Wait Times on Public Online Ratings of Glaucoma Physicians in the United States

Joo Yeon Kim, Raia Francisco, Jiaying Wang, Jacob J. Liu, Nathaniel J. Stephenson, Charbel Bou Khalil, Dong Hyeon Kim, Anne X. Nguyen, Gun Min Youn, Yang Sun, Albert Y. Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Précis: Glaucoma surgeons are highly rated by the general public. Physicians with shorter wait times and who are younger are more likely to have higher ratings. Female glaucoma physicians are less likely to have higher ratings. Purpose: Find what characteristics of glaucoma physicians are associated with higher online ratings. Methods: All American members of the American Glaucoma Society were queried on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Yelp. Ratings, medical school ranking, region of practice, sex, age, and wait times were recorded. Results: One thousand one hundred six (78.2%) of American Glaucoma Society members had at least 1 review across the 3 platforms. The average score among glaucoma surgeons was 4.160 (0.898 SD). Female physicians were associated with lower online ratings [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.536; 95% CI 0.354-0.808]. Physicians with <30 minutes of wait time had higher ratings: 15-30 minutes wait time (aOR: 2.273; 95% CI: 1.430-3.636) and <15 minutes wait time (aOR: 3.102; 95% CI: 1.888-5.146). Older physicians had lower ratings (aOR: 0.384; 95% CI: 0.255-0.572). Conclusions: Public online ratings of glaucoma specialists in the United States seem to favor those of younger age, men, and those with shorter wait times.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)609-612
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Glaucoma
Volume32
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • glaucoma
  • online physician reviews
  • ophthalmology
  • sex

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Influence of Age, Sex, and Wait Times on Public Online Ratings of Glaucoma Physicians in the United States'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this