Unveiling patient-centric interactions in virtual consultation: A comprehensive text mining approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore patient perceptions and interactions with virtual consultation (VC) systems to understand the factors influencing their adoption and satisfaction. We analyzed 21,839 patient reviews from four major virtual consultation platforms-MDLive, Doctor on Demand, Maple, and HealthTap-collected from publicly accessible sources. Sentiment analysis, word frequency analysis, topic modeling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), and association rule mining were used to extract insights. The findings reveal a generally positive sentiment among patients, with recurring themes focusing on app functionality and the important role of doctors in the virtual consultation experience. Virtual consultation systems were found to play a dual role: as a communicator during initial interactions and as a medium facilitating patient-doctor communication. The analysis also identified key doctor-related factors, categorized by the Theory of Planned Behavior, including attitudes (e.g., empathy), subjective norms (e.g., cultural competence), and perceived behavioral control (e.g., time management). The study provides valuable insights for enhancing healthcare system design and improving virtual consultation quality. However, limitations include potential bias in patient reviews, limited platform focus, and the lack of demographic data. Future research should explore advanced machine learning techniques and investigate relationships between different factors to improve virtual healthcare.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it