Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites (PRWs) are increasingly used by patients to assess healthcare providers, yet little is known about the factors influencing patient feedback in ophthalmology across different healthcare systems. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify variables associated with patient reviews of ophthalmologists, with a particular focus on soft skill-related feedback, and to compare trends between Polish and British healthcare systems. METHODS: We analyzed data on 461 verified ophthalmologists-261 from ZnanyLekarz.pl (Poland) and 200 from Doctify.com (UK)-collected between March and July 2024 with the highest number of reviews. Physician characteristics, including sex, academic title, years of experience, practice setting, specialization, and online presence, were examined. Review content was categorized into soft skills, professional abilities, or both. Statistical and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors influencing (a) soft review frequency and (b) the profile of a top-rated ophthalmologist, defined as one with the highest overall ratings and a minimum of 100 reviews. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 70,176 patient reviews-55,786 from a Polish physician rating website (PRW) and 14,390 from a British PRW. Polish ophthalmologists received significantly more reviews than their British counterparts, with a median of 141 reviews per physician compared to 44 in the UK (p < 0.001). Feedback focused on soft skills accounted for 74% of Polish reviews and 59% of British reviews. Key predictors of soft skill-focused reviews included female gender, higher average ratings, practice in pediatric ophthalmology, and affiliation with the private sector. In contrast, fewer soft reviews were associated with area of surgical expertise, public sector employment, and practicing in the UK. Academic title also influenced the content of reviews: physicians holding PhDs received more feedback focused on soft skills, while full professors received less and years of experience had no significant effect. In the multivariate model assessing predictors of being a top-rated ophthalmologist for the whole cohort, each additional review containing substantive content or soft skill-related feedback increased the odds by 29% and 14%, respectively (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Patient reviews are largely influenced by perceived interpersonal qualities rather than professional credentials or clinical experience. The active solicitation of patient feedback, as implemented on Polish physician rating platforms, results in over three times the volume of reviews compared to the British approach, which relies on passive voluntary submission without direct prompts.