Merel Willard
Publicatie
Publication date
15-04-2026
Rating and review platforms in OECD countries : a descriptive study on key-characteristics, opportunities and challenges.
Willard, M., Bos, N., Heide, I. van der Rating and review platforms in OECD countries : a descriptive study on key-characteristics, opportunities and challenges. Utrecht: Nivel, 2026. 58 p.
Download the PDF
Transparency is widely recognised as a fundamental principle of high-quality, patient-centred healthcare. By making information about healthcare performance, processes, and outcomes visible, transparency supports accountability, trust, and informed decision-making for patients, professionals, and policymakers. Within this transparency, patient experiences have gained increasing attention as a crucial source of insight into how care is delivered and perceived in everyday practice. The aim of this study was to explore the characteristics of healthcare rating and review platforms in use across OECD countries, including the methods they employ to ensure the reliability of ratings and reviews. The goal was to derive lessons for the (further) development and positioning of the Dutch rating and review platform ZorgkaartNederland. To this end, we examined international examples in OECD countries where patient rating and review platforms are active. This was done based on desk research as well as surveys and interviews among platform holders, a stakeholder survey and two interviews with experts.
Rating and review platforms face recurring challenges, particularly around the reliability of information and, in some contexts, resistance from health care professionals. Although questions about reliability remain central, these platforms continue to play a role in ongoing discussions about transparency in healthcare. Rather than assuming a fixed or uniform demand, it is important to explore under which conditions rating and review platforms can be meaningful and accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. Current platforms are very willing to learn from each other. ZorgkaartNederland provides an example of efforts to combine patient experiences with outcome information and to increase reliability through verified reviews. At the same time, platforms such as CareOpinion and Legelisten demonstrate the value of a clear focus and active engagement with healthcare providers, which may strengthen their practical relevance and sustainability. A key issue for future development is therefore not only whether patients need these platforms, but also how resistance among healthcare professionals can be reduced and how patients and providers can be brought into closer dialogue. This raises questions about what forms of transparency healthcare providers themselves would consider workable and legitimate, and whether patient needs for transparency might also be addressed through alternative or complementary approaches. Greater attention to conversations with healthcare professionals may help identify the conditions under which transparency initiatives are more likely to gain support and have practical impact. In addition, policymakers could play a key role, especially if the current government aims to strengthen transparency in healthcare. If the government is not involved with a platform, the absence of public subsidy pushes a platform towards alternative revenue streams, most often higher subscription fees for healthcare professionals or increased commercial advertising. Such a commercial approach may be more feasible in some countries than others, since a platform’s success is highly dependent on how well it fits within a country’s healthcare system.
Rating and review platforms face recurring challenges, particularly around the reliability of information and, in some contexts, resistance from health care professionals. Although questions about reliability remain central, these platforms continue to play a role in ongoing discussions about transparency in healthcare. Rather than assuming a fixed or uniform demand, it is important to explore under which conditions rating and review platforms can be meaningful and accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. Current platforms are very willing to learn from each other. ZorgkaartNederland provides an example of efforts to combine patient experiences with outcome information and to increase reliability through verified reviews. At the same time, platforms such as CareOpinion and Legelisten demonstrate the value of a clear focus and active engagement with healthcare providers, which may strengthen their practical relevance and sustainability. A key issue for future development is therefore not only whether patients need these platforms, but also how resistance among healthcare professionals can be reduced and how patients and providers can be brought into closer dialogue. This raises questions about what forms of transparency healthcare providers themselves would consider workable and legitimate, and whether patient needs for transparency might also be addressed through alternative or complementary approaches. Greater attention to conversations with healthcare professionals may help identify the conditions under which transparency initiatives are more likely to gain support and have practical impact. In addition, policymakers could play a key role, especially if the current government aims to strengthen transparency in healthcare. If the government is not involved with a platform, the absence of public subsidy pushes a platform towards alternative revenue streams, most often higher subscription fees for healthcare professionals or increased commercial advertising. Such a commercial approach may be more feasible in some countries than others, since a platform’s success is highly dependent on how well it fits within a country’s healthcare system.
Transparency is widely recognised as a fundamental principle of high-quality, patient-centred healthcare. By making information about healthcare performance, processes, and outcomes visible, transparency supports accountability, trust, and informed decision-making for patients, professionals, and policymakers. Within this transparency, patient experiences have gained increasing attention as a crucial source of insight into how care is delivered and perceived in everyday practice. The aim of this study was to explore the characteristics of healthcare rating and review platforms in use across OECD countries, including the methods they employ to ensure the reliability of ratings and reviews. The goal was to derive lessons for the (further) development and positioning of the Dutch rating and review platform ZorgkaartNederland. To this end, we examined international examples in OECD countries where patient rating and review platforms are active. This was done based on desk research as well as surveys and interviews among platform holders, a stakeholder survey and two interviews with experts.
Rating and review platforms face recurring challenges, particularly around the reliability of information and, in some contexts, resistance from health care professionals. Although questions about reliability remain central, these platforms continue to play a role in ongoing discussions about transparency in healthcare. Rather than assuming a fixed or uniform demand, it is important to explore under which conditions rating and review platforms can be meaningful and accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. Current platforms are very willing to learn from each other. ZorgkaartNederland provides an example of efforts to combine patient experiences with outcome information and to increase reliability through verified reviews. At the same time, platforms such as CareOpinion and Legelisten demonstrate the value of a clear focus and active engagement with healthcare providers, which may strengthen their practical relevance and sustainability. A key issue for future development is therefore not only whether patients need these platforms, but also how resistance among healthcare professionals can be reduced and how patients and providers can be brought into closer dialogue. This raises questions about what forms of transparency healthcare providers themselves would consider workable and legitimate, and whether patient needs for transparency might also be addressed through alternative or complementary approaches. Greater attention to conversations with healthcare professionals may help identify the conditions under which transparency initiatives are more likely to gain support and have practical impact. In addition, policymakers could play a key role, especially if the current government aims to strengthen transparency in healthcare. If the government is not involved with a platform, the absence of public subsidy pushes a platform towards alternative revenue streams, most often higher subscription fees for healthcare professionals or increased commercial advertising. Such a commercial approach may be more feasible in some countries than others, since a platform’s success is highly dependent on how well it fits within a country’s healthcare system.
Rating and review platforms face recurring challenges, particularly around the reliability of information and, in some contexts, resistance from health care professionals. Although questions about reliability remain central, these platforms continue to play a role in ongoing discussions about transparency in healthcare. Rather than assuming a fixed or uniform demand, it is important to explore under which conditions rating and review platforms can be meaningful and accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. Current platforms are very willing to learn from each other. ZorgkaartNederland provides an example of efforts to combine patient experiences with outcome information and to increase reliability through verified reviews. At the same time, platforms such as CareOpinion and Legelisten demonstrate the value of a clear focus and active engagement with healthcare providers, which may strengthen their practical relevance and sustainability. A key issue for future development is therefore not only whether patients need these platforms, but also how resistance among healthcare professionals can be reduced and how patients and providers can be brought into closer dialogue. This raises questions about what forms of transparency healthcare providers themselves would consider workable and legitimate, and whether patient needs for transparency might also be addressed through alternative or complementary approaches. Greater attention to conversations with healthcare professionals may help identify the conditions under which transparency initiatives are more likely to gain support and have practical impact. In addition, policymakers could play a key role, especially if the current government aims to strengthen transparency in healthcare. If the government is not involved with a platform, the absence of public subsidy pushes a platform towards alternative revenue streams, most often higher subscription fees for healthcare professionals or increased commercial advertising. Such a commercial approach may be more feasible in some countries than others, since a platform’s success is highly dependent on how well it fits within a country’s healthcare system.
