The Impact of Collaborative Documentation on Person-Centered Care: Textual Analysis of Clinical Notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Collaborative documentation (CD) is a behavioral health practice involving shared writing of clinic visit notes by providers and consumers. Despite widespread dissemination of CD, research on its effectiveness or impact on person-centered care (PCC) has been limited. Principles of PCC planning, a recovery-based approach to service planning that operationalizes PCC, can inform the measurement of person-centeredness within clinical documentation. Objective: This study aims to use the clinical informatics approach of natural language processing (NLP) to examine the impact of CD on person-centeredness in clinic visit notes. Using a dictionary-based approach, this study conducts a textual analysis of clinic notes from a community mental health center before and after staff were trained in CD. Methods: This study used visit notes (n=1981) from 10 providers in a community mental health center 6 months before and after training in CD. LIWC-22 was used to assess all notes using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary, which categorizes over 5000 linguistic and psychological words. Twelve LIWC categories were selected and mapped onto PCC planning principles through the consensus of 3 domain experts. The LIWC-22 contextualizer was used to extract sentence fragments from notes corresponding to LIWC categories. Then, fixed-effects modeling was used to identify differences in notes before and after CD training while accounting for nesting within the provider. Results: Sentence fragments identified by the contextualizing process illustrated how visit notes demonstrated PCC. The fixed effects analysis found a significant positive shift toward person-centeredness; this was observed in 6 of the selected LIWC categories post CD. Specifically, there was a notable increase in words associated with achievement (β=.774, P<.001), power (β=.831, P<.001), money (β=.204, P<.001), physical health (β=.427, P=.03), while leisure words decreased (β=-.166, P=.002). Conclusions: By using a dictionary-based approach, the study identified how CD might influence the integration of PCC principles within clinical notes. Although the results were mixed, the findings highlight the potential effectiveness of CD in enhancing person-centeredness in clinic notes. By leveraging NLP techniques, this research illuminated the value of narrative clinical notes in assessing the quality of care in behavioral health contexts. These findings underscore the promise of NLP for quality assurance in health care settings and emphasize the need for refining algorithms to more accurately measure PCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".