http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html medical blog Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:43:56 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html/comment-page-1#comment-85094 Anonymous Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/the-fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html#comment-85094 True, though Press Gainey claims to be statistically valid and unbiased unlike the doctor survey websites which make no such claims. True, though Press Gainey claims to be statistically valid and unbiased unlike the doctor survey websites which make no such claims.

]]> http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html/comment-page-1#comment-85093 TheHospitalPharmacist Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:17:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/the-fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html#comment-85093 I think this is true for any voluntary rating system. I think this is true for any voluntary rating system.

]]> http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html/comment-page-1#comment-85083 Anonymous Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:30:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/the-fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html#comment-85083 I would imagine this is equally true for<br/>hospital-rating systems such as Press-Gainey. While their sample size is much greater than doctor-rating websites, the methodology suffers from the same selection bias. Yet Press-Gainey insists that the methodology is rigorously tested and scientifically valid. Intuitively, I can't imagine how random phone surveys would generate equivalent data as self-directed mail-in or web-based responses for the reasons stated in the above post. As my knowledge of statistics is sorely lacking, I would welcome any scientific defense of the Press-Gainey methodology - until then, I still feel their variable survey methodology is inherently biased in favor of hospitals using random phone surveys. I would imagine this is equally true for
hospital-rating systems such as Press-Gainey. While their sample size is much greater than doctor-rating websites, the methodology suffers from the same selection bias. Yet Press-Gainey insists that the methodology is rigorously tested and scientifically valid. Intuitively, I can’t imagine how random phone surveys would generate equivalent data as self-directed mail-in or web-based responses for the reasons stated in the above post. As my knowledge of statistics is sorely lacking, I would welcome any scientific defense of the Press-Gainey methodology – until then, I still feel their variable survey methodology is inherently biased in favor of hospitals using random phone surveys.

]]> http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html/comment-page-1#comment-85081 Dr. R Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/the-fallacy-of-doctor-rating-websites.html#comment-85081 I find doctor ratings sites very useful. It allowed me to discover that my medical diploma from McGill University in Montreal came from "une boite de cracker jack." I now have a site called IrateMds.com about scifi doctors. I worry that I may be an evil Cylon or a Sith lord. I find doctor ratings sites very useful. It allowed me to discover that my medical diploma from McGill University in Montreal came from “une boite de cracker jack.” I now have a site called IrateMds.com about scifi doctors. I worry that I may be an evil Cylon or a Sith lord.

]]>