Provider attributes correlation analysis to their referral frequency and awards
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
Published on: March 22, 2022
Matthew T Wiley1,2, Ryan L Rivas3, Vagelis Hristidis3
1Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA. mwile001@ucr.edu.
Background:
There has been a recent growth in health provider search portals, where patients specify filters-such as specialty or insurance-and providers are ranked by patient ratings or other attributes. Previous work has identified attributes associated with a provider's quality through user surveys. Other work supports that intuitive quality-indicating attributes are associated with a provider's quality.
Methods:
We adopt a data-driven approach to study how quality indicators of providers are associated with a rich set of attributes including medical school, graduation year, procedures, fellowships, patient reviews, location, and technology usage. In this work, we only consider providers as individuals (e.g., general practitioners) and not organizations (e.g., hospitals). As quality indicators, we consider the referral frequency of a provider and a peer-nominated quality designation. We combined data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and several provider rating web sites to perform our analysis.
Results:
Our data-driven analysis identified several attributes that correlate with and discriminate against referral volume and peer-nominated awards. In particular, our results consistently demonstrate that these attributes vary by locality and that the frequency of an attribute is more important than its value (e.g., the number of patient reviews or hospital affiliations are more important than the average review rating or the ranking of the hospital affiliations, respectively). We demonstrate that it is possible to build accurate classifiers for referral frequency and quality designation, with accuracies over 85 %.
Conclusions:
Our findings show that a one-size-fits-all approach to ranking providers is inadequate and that provider search portals should calibrate their ranking function based on location and specialty. Further, traditional filters of provider search portals should be reconsidered, and patients should be aware of existing pitfalls with these filters and educated on local factors that affect quality. These findings enable provider search portals to empower patients and to "load balance" patients between younger and older providers.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Correlation and Regression
Coefficient of Correlation
If you suspect a linear relationship between x and y, then r can measure how strong the linear relationship is.
What the VALUE of r tells us:
The value of r is always between –1 and +1: –1 ≤ r ≤ 1.
The size of the correlation r indicates the...
Correlation and Causation
Correlation versus Causation
If the dependent variable increases or decreases when the independent variable increases, there is a positive or negative...
Correlation
Two variables, for example, a and b, are said to be positively correlated if both variables move in the same direction. In other words, a positive correlation exists between two variables, a and b, if:
Correlations
Calculating and Interpreting the Linear Correlation Coefficient

