Fake clinician reviews are often seen as more trustworthy and helpful than genuine ones, according to a Simon Fraser University study.
New research reveals fraudulent clinician reviews often seem more credible because they include richer personal health details that real patients are reluctant sharing publicly. Researchers say these detailed narratives exploit a gap between the information people want to read and what real patients are willing to share.
"Patients naturally want detailed information when they're choosing a healthcare provider. A real patient might simply say a doctor was helpful, while a fake review tells a detailed story about symptoms, diagnosis and treatment," says Aishwarya Deep Shukla, associate professor at the Beedie School of Business and lead author of the study.
"People are drawn to stories. Unfortunately, these deceptive reviews have the kind of information real patients don't usually share publicly and can influence decisions about who people trust with their care."
The study, published in Internet Research, looked at 35,000 reviews collected in India between 2015 and 2017. The reviews spanned medical specialties from family medicine to dentistry and dermatology.
Researchers verified 8,313 fake reviews posted by healthcare providers and associated clinic staff, some of whom impersonated patients. They exploited a security flaw in an online platform that invited patients to leave reviews following appointments.
The team further analyzed a representative random sample of 5,000 reviews and found fake reviews were longer than genuine ones and gave more detail about symptoms, diagnoses, medications and treatment. These fake reviews received more helpful votes and scored higher on a measure of perceived trustworthiness than genuine reviews.
Shukla says the fake review tactics documented in the study persist today, aided by advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI).
"When I look at reviews now, I see the same patterns of length and detail. The double-edged sword of AI is that it's helping real people write more complete and useful reviews, but it's also helping bad actors produce detailed fake reviews at scale."
Shukla prescribes stronger safeguards, such as appointment-linked review systems, authenticated anonymous reviews, and stronger moderation practices. Revamping review formats to help patients share more meaningful information without revealing sensitive personal details must be part of the solution, he adds.
Longer-term solutions should include verified review systems managed by healthcare organizations or public agencies that confirm a patient relationship while preserving anonymity.
Top tips for using clinician reviews
Fake reviews are most prevalent where there's competition for patients or clients, says Shukla. This includes private clinics and services such as dentistry, psychology and counselling, or physiotherapy, for example.
He says patients searching for a new clinician should:
- Read all the reviews: Look for consistent themes across many reviews rather than focusing on one or two standout stories.
- Be cautious of reviews that reveal unusually detailed medical information that most patients would be uncomfortable sharing publicly.
- Don't dismiss providers who have zero or very few reviews; most satisfied patients never leave reviews at all.
- Consider reviews alongside other sources of information, including professional credentials, personal recommendations and direct interactions with a clinic.
