Researchers found that online ratings for healthcare facilities worsened following the COVID-19 pandemic, and this trend continues.
According to a recent study by researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, there was a significant decline in online reviews for healthcare facilities after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data indicates that over 50% of reviews on Yelp are now negative, a stark contrast to the period before COVID-19. The results of this analysis were published today in JAMA Network Open.
“Online reviews provide valuable insights into patient experiences that traditional methods, such as hospital-administered surveys, might overlook,” stated Neil Sehgal, ME, the lead author of the study and an associate fellow at the Penn Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. “These reviews can help hospitals understand what truly matters to patients and their families in almost real time.”
By examining all Yelp reviews of healthcare facilities in the U.S. from 2014 to 2023, Sehgal, co-author Anish Agarwal, MD, an assistant professor of Emergency Medicine, and their team discovered that the share of positive reviews (rating four or five stars) dropped from 54.3% before March 2020 (the start of the COVID outbreak in the U.S.) to 47.9% afterward.
Moreover, starting from late 2021, the researchers noted that positive reviews never exceeded 50%.
“Our examination covered Yelp reviews from various healthcare facilities nationwide, including hospitals, urgent care centers, and doctors’ offices,” Sehgal explained. “This analysis reveals how public perception of healthcare shifted following COVID-19. We hope this information can assist healthcare professionals in understanding the factors influencing these opinions.”
Fluctuations in Feedback
The research team applied language processing techniques to extract the most common topics mentioned in the reviews, categorize them into themes, and track their evolution over time.
The most notable changes in themes from before to after COVID-19 included “insurance and billing issues” and “customer service and staff behavior.”
Interestingly, there was a decline in mentions of facility cleanliness in negative reviews after the pandemic, despite an increased focus on hygiene.
Emerging Trends by Ethnicity and Geography
While overall positive reviews for healthcare facilities on Yelp declined, rural facilities began with lower ratings and saw this disparity grow after the pandemic. Post-COVID, rural facilities were 23% less likely to receive positive reviews, whereas urban facilities had a 7% decline in positive reviews.
The analysis also looked at racial demographics, revealing that healthcare facilities located in neighborhoods with higher populations of Black or white residents experienced a more significant decrease in positive ratings. Conversely, facilities in areas with a higher percentage of Hispanic residents still saw a decline in positive ratings, but the change was less severe.
“Currently, we lack clarity on the reasons behind these variations among different communities,” Agarwal mentioned. “However, this insight can guide us in formulating better questions and improving care delivery across the nation moving forward.”
The researchers also noted ethnic patterns regarding the most frequently mentioned complaints. Reviews from areas with larger Black and/or Hispanic populations often highlighted “insurance and billing issues,” while reviews from predominantly white areas commonly criticized “wait times.”
“Many of the themes overlap yet remain distinct across different regions, which underscores the need for health systems and facilities to be more responsive and tailored to the specific needs and sentiments of their local communities,” Agarwal added.
Looking ahead, the researchers aim to delve further into the content of these reviews to gain a better understanding of how viewpoints and attitudes differ across socio-ethnic groups, ultimately equipping healthcare professionals with better tools to address individual concerns effectively.
This study received partial funding from several National Institutes of Health grants (NIH NHLBI R01HL1-141844, NIH/DHHS R01 MH127686, NIH-NIMHD:R01MD018340, and NIH K24 HL157621).
