Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Substance Use Terminology

Substance Use Terminology Letters 2. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of quantity of reviews that would accurately relay the experi- health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of ence of care with that physician. physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):942-946. Given the demand by consumers for information about 3. Review Concierge. Which sites matter? http://reviewconcierge.com/docs/which physicians, other methods for publishing patient feedback are -sites-matter. Accessed September 22, 2016. being developed, and some health systems are beginning to 4. Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of report quantitative reviews and narratives drawn from pa- physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38. tient experience surveys. Because of the scarcity of reviews on commercial sites, one of these other methods of publish- 5. Schlesinger M, Grob R, Shaller D, et al. Taking Patients’ Narratives about Clinicians from Anecdote to Science. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(7): ing patient feedback may emerge as the dominant route by 675-679. which patients seek reviews about physicians. Methods that 6. Lee TH, Online Reviews Could Help Fix Medicine MD. Harvard Business Review. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Substance Use Terminology

Barnett, Anthony I.; Hall, Wayne; Carter, Adrian
JAMA , Volume 317 (7) – Feb 21, 2017
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/substance-use-terminology-cC8w1jCcQG

References (9)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2017 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2016.20475
pmid
28241349
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Letters 2. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of quantity of reviews that would accurately relay the experi- health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of ence of care with that physician. physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):942-946. Given the demand by consumers for information about 3. Review Concierge. Which sites matter? http://reviewconcierge.com/docs/which physicians, other methods for publishing patient feedback are -sites-matter. Accessed September 22, 2016. being developed, and some health systems are beginning to 4. Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of report quantitative reviews and narratives drawn from pa- physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38. tient experience surveys. Because of the scarcity of reviews on commercial sites, one of these other methods of publish- 5. Schlesinger M, Grob R, Shaller D, et al. Taking Patients’ Narratives about Clinicians from Anecdote to Science. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(7): ing patient feedback may emerge as the dominant route by 675-679. which patients seek reviews about physicians. Methods that 6. Lee TH, Online Reviews Could Help Fix Medicine MD. Harvard Business Review.

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Feb 21, 2017

There are no references for this article.