Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews.
Date
2025-02
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Repository Usage Stats
views
downloads
Citation Stats
Attention Stats
Abstract
Importance
Prior studies have revealed gender differences in workplace assessments of physicians, but little is known about differences by physician gender in patients' online written reviews.Objective
To analyze whether patients' perceptions of their physicians' interpersonal manner and technical competence differ by physician gender and practicing specialty and are associated with review star ratings.Design, setting, and participants
This cross-sectional study sampled written reviews submitted by patients between October 16, 2015, and May 27, 2020, for physicians across the US from a commercial physician rating and review website. Physicians included primary care physicians (PCPs) listed under family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics and surgeons listed under general surgery; orthopedic surgery; and cosmetic, plastic, and reconstructive surgery. Hand-coded reviews were used to fine-tune a natural language processing algorithm to classify all reviews for the presence and valence of patients' comments of physicians' interpersonal manner and technical competence. Statistical analyses were performed from July 2022 to December 2024.Exposure
Female or male physician gender.Main outcomes and measures
Outcomes included the presence and valence of interpersonal manner and technical competence comments and receipt of high star ratings. Multilevel logistic regressions analyzed differences by female or male physician gender in interpersonal manner and technical competence comments and whether those comments were associated with review star ratings.Results
The analysis included 345 053 written reviews of 167 150 physicians (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [11.40] years); 60 060 physicians (35.9%) were female, and 36 132 (21.6%) were surgeons. Female physicians overall had higher odds than males of receiving any (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.22) or negative (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26) patient comments for their interpersonal manner. Among PCPs, females had higher odds than males of receiving a negative comment for interpersonal manner (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.27) and, when receiving that negative comment, had disproportionately lower odds of receiving a high star rating (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.73). Female physicians overall (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13) and female PCPs (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13) had higher odds than their male counterparts of receiving a negative comment for their technical competence. When receiving a negative comment for technical competence, both female PCPs (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.73) and female surgeons (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89) had disproportionately lower odds of receiving a high star rating compared with their male counterparts. Female PCPs also had lower odds than male PCPs of receiving a high star rating when receiving a positive comment for technical competence (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).Conclusions and relevance
In this cross-sectional study of online written reviews, female and male physician gender were differently associated with patients' perceptions of their physicians' interpersonal manner and technical competence. The findings suggest that patients harbored negative gender biases about the interpersonal manner of female physicians, especially female PCPs, and also assessed disproportionate penalties related to technical competence for both female PCPs and female surgeons.Type
Department
Description
Provenance
Subjects
Citation
Permalink
Published Version (Please cite this version)
Publication Info
Madanay, Farrah, M Kate Bundorf and Peter A Ubel (2025). Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews. JAMA network open, 8(2). p. e2460018. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60018 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/32092.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
Scholars@Duke

M. Kate Bundorf
Professor Bundorf’s research focuses on health policy and the economics of health care systems. She has studied public and private health insurance markets, the organization of health care providers, and consumer decision making in health care. Prior to joining the faculty at Duke, Professor Bundorf was an associate professor of health research and policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine. She is also a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Bundorf received her MBA and MPH from The University of California at Berkeley and her PhD from The Wharton School. She was a Fulbright Lecturer at Fudan School of Public Health in Shanghai, China during 2009 and 2010. Her research has been published in leading economic and health policy journals and has received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She received the 13th Annual Health Care Research Award from The National Institute for Health Care Management in 2007.

Peter A Ubel
I am a physician and behavioral scientist at Duke University. My research and writing explores the quirks in human nature that influence our lives — the mixture of rational and irrational forces that affect our health, our happiness and the way our society functions. (What fun would it be to tackle just the easy problems?)
I am currently exploring controversial issues about the role of values and preferences in health care decision making, from decisions at the bedside to policy decisions. I use the tools of decision psychology and behavioral economics to explore topics like informed consent, shared decision making and health care spending. My books include Pricing Life (MIT Press 2000) and Free Market Madness (Harvard Business Press, 2009). My newest book, Critical Decisions (HarperCollins), came out in September of 2012, and explores the challenges of shared decision making between doctors and patients.
Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.