Objectives: While research on doctor-patient interaction has often focused on the decision-making abilities of physicians, it rarely centers around the question of how patients choose their respective practitioners. Research on fundamental decision processes is of high importance and understanding the factors that influence people’s choices in real-life decision-making would potentially provide patients, and physicians alike, with the means to provide better resources to achieve greater satisfaction from visits to a medical practitioner. Methods: At our tertiary referral center, patients were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in our survey. We collected questionnaires from 1,002 patients during their visit from November 2018 to February 2020. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V26.0 software (SPSS Statistics, Version 26.0.; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Results are reported as percentages for categorial variables. Results: Our patient cohort consisted of a higher percentage of men than of women (82 vs. 18%) with significantly more men having a university-based education (44 vs. 31%; p = 0.001). Women were more likely to have statutory health insurance than men (85 vs. 74%; p = 0.013). Men significantly preferred to be treated by a doctor of the same sex (24 vs. 8%; p < 0.001), which significantly increased with age. Overall, more women than men trusted a referral by their primary care physician (75 vs. 66%, p = 0.017), while preference of a higher academic degree in the attending urologist was significantly correlated with the patients’ education. Conclusions: Information on a specialist, such as professional qualifications and academic accomplishments, is easily accessible to patients with or without access to the Internet. However, recommendations and referrals, in addition to consistent care by the same treating physician, seem to be of high importance to all patients, regardless of gender or age.

1.
Detmer
DE
,
Fryback
DG
,
Gassner
K
.
Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making
.
J Med Educ
.
1978
;
53
(
8
):
682
3
. .
2.
Dawson
NV
,
Arkes
HR
.
Systematic errors in medical decision making: judgment limitations
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
1987
;
2
(
3
):
183
7
. .
3.
Bornstein
BH
,
Marcus
D
,
Cassidy
W
.
Choosing a doctor: an exploratory study of factors influencing patients’ choice of a primary care doctor
.
J Eval Clin Pract
.
2000
;
6
(
3
):
255
62
. .
4.
Ahmad
WI
,
Kernohan
EE
,
Baker
MR
.
Patients’ choice of general practitioner: influence of patients’ fluency in English and the ethnicity and sex of the doctor
.
J R Coll Gen Pract
.
1989
;
39
(
321
):
153
5
.
5.
Deng
Z
,
Hong
Z
,
Zhang
W
,
Evans
R
,
Chen
Y
.
The effect of online effort and reputation of physicians on patients’ choice: 3-wave data analysis of China’s good doctor website
.
J Med Internet Res
.
2019
;
21
(
3
):
e10170
. .
6.
Rothenfluh
F
,
Germeni
E
,
Schulz
PJ
.
Consumer decision-making based on review websites: are there differences between choosing a hotel and choosing a physician?
J Med Internet Res
.
2016
;
18
(
6
):
e129
. .
7.
Zhang
S
,
Wang
JN
,
Chiu
YL
,
Hsu
YT
.
Exploring types of information sources used when choosing doctors: observational study in an online health care community
.
J Med Internet Res
.
2020
;
22
(
9
):
e20910
. .
8.
Salisbury
CJ
.
How do people choose their doctor?
BMJ
.
1989
;
299
(
6699
):
608
10
. .
9.
Billinghurst
B
,
Whitfield
M
.
Why do patients change their general practitioner? A postal questionnaire study of patients in Avon
.
Br J Gen Pract
.
1993
;
43
(
373
):
336
8
.
10.
Lubalin
JS
,
Harris-Kojetin
LD
.
What do consumers want and need to know in making health care choices?
Med Care Res Rev
.
1999
;
56
(
Suppl 1
):
67
102
; discussion 103–12. .
11.
Gibbs
DA
,
Sangl
JA
,
Burrus
B
.
Consumer perspectives on information needs for health plan choice
.
Health Care Financ Rev
.
1996
;
18
(
1
):
55
73
.
12.
Kelley
K
,
Clark
B
,
Brown
V
,
Sitzia
J
.
Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research
.
Int J Qual Health Care
.
2003
;
15
(
3
):
261
6
. .
13.
Busse
R
,
Blümel
M
,
Knieps
F
,
Bärnighausen
T
.
Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition
.
Lancet
.
2017
;
390
(
10097
):
882
97
. .
14.
Amir
H
,
Beri
A
,
Yechiely
R
,
Amir Levy
Y
,
Shimonov
M
,
Groutz
A
.
Do urology male patients prefer same-gender urologist?
Am J Mens Health
.
2018
;
12
(
5
):
1379
83
. .
15.
Lahat
A
,
Assouline-Dayan
Y
,
Katz
LH
,
Fidder
HH
.
The preference for an endoscopist specific sex: a link between ethnic origin, religious belief, socioeconomic status, and procedure type
.
Patient Prefer Adherence
.
2013
;
7
:
897
903
. .
16.
Cox
A
,
Siemens
DR
.
Continued gender disparity in urology? Only time will tell
.
Can Urol Assoc J
.
2020
;
14
(
4
):
79
80
. .
17.
Hoerger
TJ
,
Howard
LZ
.
Search behavior and choice of physician in the market for prenatal care
.
Med Care
.
1995
;
33
(
4
):
332
49
. .
18.
Lupton
D
,
Donaldson
C
,
Lloyd
P
.
Caveat emptor or blissful ignorance? Patients and the consumerist ethos
.
Soc Sci Med
.
1991
;
33
(
5
):
559
68
. .
19.
Ellimoottil
C
,
Kadlec
AO
,
Farooq
A
,
Quek
ML
.
Choosing a physician in the Yelp era
.
Bull Am Coll Surg
.
2013
;
98
(
11
):
20
1
.
20.
Jiang
T
,
Stillson
CH
,
Pollack
CE
,
Crossette
L
,
Ross
M
,
Radhakrishnan
A
,
How men with prostate cancer choose specialists: a qualitative study
.
J Am Board Fam Med
.
2017
;
30
(
2
):
220
9
. .
21.
Collison
B
.
An academic degree doesn’t always mean better bedside care
.
RN
.
2005
;
68
(
8
):
12, 14
.
22.
Pabst
R
,
Park
DH
,
Paulmann
V
.
[The German academic degree “Dr. med.” is better than its reputation. Results of a questionnaire of doctoral students]
.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr
.
2012
;
137
(
45
):
2311
5
. .
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.