Automating Large-scale Health Care Service Feedback Analysis: Sentiment Analysis and Topic Modeling Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Obtaining patient feedback is an essential mechanism for health care service providers to assess their quality and effectiveness. Unlike assessments of clinical outcomes, feedback from patients offers insights into their lived experiences. The Department of Health and Social Care in England via National Health Service Digital operates a patient feedback web service through which patients can leave feedback of their experiences in structured and free-text report forms. Free-text feedback, compared with structured questionnaires, may be less biased by the feedback collector and, thus, more representative; however, it is harder to analyze in large quantities and challenging to derive meaningful, quantitative outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to build a novel data analysis and interactive visualization pipeline accessible through an interactive web application to facilitate the interrogation of and provide unique insights into National Health Service patient feedback. METHODS: This study details the development of a text analysis tool that uses contemporary natural language processing and machine learning models to analyze free-text clinical service reviews to develop a robust classification model and interactive visualization web application. The methodology is based on the design science research paradigm and was conducted in three iterations: a sentiment analysis of the patient feedback corpus in the first iteration, topic modeling (unigram and bigram)-based analysis for topic identification in the second iteration, and nested topic modeling in the third iteration that combines sentiment analysis and topic modeling methods. An interactive data visualization web application for use by the general public was then created, presenting the data on a geographic representation of the country, making it easily accessible. RESULTS: Of the 11,103 possible clinical services that could be reviewed across England, 2030 (18.28%) different services received a combined total of 51,845 reviews between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Dominant topics were identified for the entire corpus followed by negative- and positive-sentiment topics in turn. Reviews containing high- and low-sentiment topics occurred more frequently than reviews containing less polarized topics. Time-series analysis identified trends in topic and sentiment occurrence frequency across the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Using contemporary natural language processing techniques, unstructured text data were effectively characterized for further analysis and visualization. An efficient pipeline was successfully combined with a web application, making automated analysis and dissemination of large volumes of information accessible. This study represents a significant step in efforts to generate and visualize useful, actionable, and unique information from free-text patient reviews.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».