Search

Objectives: This study compares hospital-generated online ratings to patient-generated online ratings in academic otolaryngology and evaluates physician factors influencing these results. Methods: Websites of academic otolaryngologists were assessed for inclusion of hospital-generated Press Ganey surveys. Corresponding scores on Healthgrades and Vitals.com were identified via internet search. Hospital ratings were compared with patient-generated ratings, including score, demographics, and number of ratings. All data was collected between July 15th 2019 and August 22nd 2019. Results: 742 academic otolaryngologists with hospital-generated ratings were identified. Mean hospital-generated rating was significantly higher ((4.70, 95% CI 4.69-4.72) than patient-generated rating (Vitals:4.26, 95% CI 4.18-4.34, and Healthgrades:4.02, 95% CI 3.87-4.18; P <.001). In patient-generated rating, an increased number of rating scores (>20) was associated with male gender, professor ranking, and >30 years in practice (P <.005). Physician demographics did not impact number of ratings in hospital-generated setting. With patient-generated, lower aggregate score was associated with professor ranking (P =.001). In hospital-generated, lower score was associated with >30+ years in practice (P =.023). Across all platforms, comprehensive otolaryngologists and neurotologists/otologists were rated lower in comparison to other specialties (PGS: P <.001,Vitals: P =.027,Healthgrades: P =.016). Conclusion: Hospital-generated ratings yield higher mean scores than patient-generated platforms. Between sources, Healthgrades.com scores were lower than those of Vitals.com. Professors with >30 years of practice generated more reviews in patient-generated ratings, and these physicians were generally rated lower. Access to patient-generated ratings is universal and physicians should be aware of variability between online rating platforms as scores may affect referrals and practice patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The French Cancer Plan has given a new impulse to the doctor-patient relationship and therapeutic practices, but there remain inadequate resources, particularly with regard to medical professionals, a problem exacerbated by physician burnout. It is crucial to take cues from frontline oncologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The recent approval of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARis, eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide) is anticipated to change the non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment landscape. Herein, we describe patient (pt) and physician characteristics and historical treatment patterns as a baseline to an evolving nmCRPC treatment landscape in Japan. Methods Descriptive analyses were conducted using 2015-2017 Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor Database. Results 1,114 nmCRPC pts (median age: 80 years; median BMI: 23.1 Kg/m2; ECOG score ≤ 1: 88.8%) were included. Almost all (98.7%) pts were treated by urologists, 40.8% were stage III at initial diagnosis, and 54.5% had Gleason score between 8-10. The two most common hormone sensitive treatments which pts received preceding CRPC diagnosis were bicalutamide/leuprolide combination (42.4%) and bicalutamide/goserelin combination (16.7%). The two most commonly prescribed treatments by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd nmCRPC regimen (R) were: 1R, bicalutamide/leuprolide combination (14.4%) and leuprolide (12.7%); 2R, bicalutamide/leuprolide combination (9.4%) and flutamide/leuprolide combination (7.7%); 3R, flutamide/leuprolide combination (8.4%) and estramustine/leuprolide combination (5.5%). The proportion of pts receiving abiraterone and enzalutamide were relatively low: 66 (5.9%) and 249 (22.4%) overall; 25 (2.2%) and 120 (10.8%) in 1R; 24 (4.1%) and 79 (13.5%) in 2R; and 17 (6.2%) and 52 (19.0%) in 3R. Most common treatment discontinuation reasons were treatment resistance, progression, and side effects. Conclusions These data represent real-world treatment patterns in nmCRPC and may be reflective of a reticence to introduce pharmacotherapy in a largely asymptomatic disease. Future studies should evaluate utilization patterns after more experience with second generation ARis has accumulated and explore any putative relationship between tolerable pharmacotherapy and extent of utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]