应用医生评论网站的情感和词频分析评估屈光手术护理

Victoria Vought , Rita Vought , Andrew S. Lee , Irene Zhou , Mansi Garneni , Steven A. Greenstein
{"title":"应用医生评论网站的情感和词频分析评估屈光手术护理","authors":"Victoria Vought ,&nbsp;Rita Vought ,&nbsp;Andrew S. Lee ,&nbsp;Irene Zhou ,&nbsp;Mansi Garneni ,&nbsp;Steven A. Greenstein","doi":"10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Online physician reviews increase transparency in health care, helping patients make informed decisions about their provider. Language processing techniques can quantify this data and allow providers to better understand patients' experiences, perspectives, and priorities. The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and understand the aspects of care that are valued by patients seeking refractive care using sentiment and word frequency analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Written reviews and Star ratings for members of the Refractive Surgery Alliance Society practicing in the United States were collected from Healthgrades, a popular physician rating website. Surgeons with at least one written review were included in the study. Reviews were scored from -1 (most negative) to +1 (most positive) using Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner (VADER). Reviews were stratified by demographic characteristics, namely gender, region, and years in practice. Word frequency analysis was applied to find the most common words and phrases.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 254 specialists and 3104 reviews were analyzed, with an average of 4.4/5 stars and mean 48 ratings each. Most physicians had positive reviews (96%, average VADER ​= ​0.69). Younger physicians (&lt;20 years since residency) had significantly higher Stars rating than senior peers (&gt;20 years) (<em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.001). A similar trend was observed in VADER score (0.71 vs 0.69), although not statistically significant (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.06). No statistical differences were observed between Stars rating and VADER score by gender (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.66, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.83) or by geographical region (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.74, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.07). \"Staff\" (n ​= ​1269), \"professional\" (n ​= ​631), \"office\" (n ​= ​523), \"questions\" (n ​= ​424), and \"friendly\" (n ​= ​386) were frequently used in reviews, along with phrases such as \"the staff\" (n ​= ​273) and \"my questions\" (n ​= ​174). \"Surgery\" (n ​= ​719), \"staff\" (n ​= ​576), \"procedure\" (n ​= ​251), \"experience\" (n ​= ​243), and \"professional\" (n ​= ​240) were the most common words in positive reviews, while \"surgery\" (n ​= ​147), \"office\" (n ​= ​86), \"staff\" (n ​= ​54), \"time\" (n ​= ​47), and \"insurance\" (n ​= ​28) were the most commonly used in negative reviews.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both the average Stars and VADER sentiment score suggest a high satisfaction among refractive patients. Word frequency analysis revealed that patients value non-clinical aspects of care, including interactions with staff, insurance coverage, and wait-times, suggesting that improving non-clinical factors could enhance patient satisfaction with refractive surgery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72103,"journal":{"name":"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667376224000209/pdfft?md5=ea23a98b746597512a461225a39e3053&pid=1-s2.0-S2667376224000209-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care\",\"authors\":\"Victoria Vought ,&nbsp;Rita Vought ,&nbsp;Andrew S. Lee ,&nbsp;Irene Zhou ,&nbsp;Mansi Garneni ,&nbsp;Steven A. Greenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Online physician reviews increase transparency in health care, helping patients make informed decisions about their provider. Language processing techniques can quantify this data and allow providers to better understand patients' experiences, perspectives, and priorities. The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and understand the aspects of care that are valued by patients seeking refractive care using sentiment and word frequency analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Written reviews and Star ratings for members of the Refractive Surgery Alliance Society practicing in the United States were collected from Healthgrades, a popular physician rating website. Surgeons with at least one written review were included in the study. Reviews were scored from -1 (most negative) to +1 (most positive) using Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner (VADER). Reviews were stratified by demographic characteristics, namely gender, region, and years in practice. Word frequency analysis was applied to find the most common words and phrases.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 254 specialists and 3104 reviews were analyzed, with an average of 4.4/5 stars and mean 48 ratings each. Most physicians had positive reviews (96%, average VADER ​= ​0.69). Younger physicians (&lt;20 years since residency) had significantly higher Stars rating than senior peers (&gt;20 years) (<em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.001). A similar trend was observed in VADER score (0.71 vs 0.69), although not statistically significant (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.06). No statistical differences were observed between Stars rating and VADER score by gender (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.66, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.83) or by geographical region (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.74, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.07). \\\"Staff\\\" (n ​= ​1269), \\\"professional\\\" (n ​= ​631), \\\"office\\\" (n ​= ​523), \\\"questions\\\" (n ​= ​424), and \\\"friendly\\\" (n ​= ​386) were frequently used in reviews, along with phrases such as \\\"the staff\\\" (n ​= ​273) and \\\"my questions\\\" (n ​= ​174). \\\"Surgery\\\" (n ​= ​719), \\\"staff\\\" (n ​= ​576), \\\"procedure\\\" (n ​= ​251), \\\"experience\\\" (n ​= ​243), and \\\"professional\\\" (n ​= ​240) were the most common words in positive reviews, while \\\"surgery\\\" (n ​= ​147), \\\"office\\\" (n ​= ​86), \\\"staff\\\" (n ​= ​54), \\\"time\\\" (n ​= ​47), and \\\"insurance\\\" (n ​= ​28) were the most commonly used in negative reviews.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both the average Stars and VADER sentiment score suggest a high satisfaction among refractive patients. Word frequency analysis revealed that patients value non-clinical aspects of care, including interactions with staff, insurance coverage, and wait-times, suggesting that improving non-clinical factors could enhance patient satisfaction with refractive surgery.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667376224000209/pdfft?md5=ea23a98b746597512a461225a39e3053&pid=1-s2.0-S2667376224000209-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667376224000209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667376224000209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在线医生评论提高了医疗保健的透明度,有助于患者对其医疗服务提供者做出明智的决定。语言处理技术可以量化这些数据,让医疗服务提供者更好地了解患者的经历、观点和优先事项。本研究的目的是通过情感和词频分析来评估患者的满意度,并了解寻求屈光治疗的患者所重视的医疗服务方面。至少有一篇书面评论的外科医生被纳入研究范围。评论采用 Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner (VADER) 从-1(最负面)到+1(最正面)进行评分。根据性别、地区和从业年限等人口统计学特征对评论进行了分层。结果共分析了 254 位专家和 3104 条评论,平均 4.4/5 星级,平均 48 条评论。大多数医生都有好评(96%,平均 VADER = 0.69)。年轻医生(实习期满 20 年)的 Stars 评分明显高于资深医生(20 年)(P <0.001)。VADER 评分也有类似趋势(0.71 vs 0.69),但无统计学意义(P = 0.06)。按性别(P = 0.66,P = 0.83)或地理区域(P = 0.74,P = 0.07)划分,"星星 "评分和 VADER 分数之间没有统计学差异。评论中经常使用 "工作人员"(n = 1269)、"专业"(n = 631)、"办公室"(n = 523)、"问题"(n = 424)和 "友好"(n = 386),以及 "工作人员"(n = 273)和 "我的问题"(n = 174)等短语。"手术"(n = 719)、"工作人员"(n = 576)、"程序"(n = 251)、"经验"(n = 243)和 "专业"(n = 240)是正面评论中最常用的词语,而 "手术"(n = 147)、"办公室"(n = 86)、"工作人员"(n = 54)、"时间"(n = 47)和 "保险"(n = 28)则是负面评论中最常用的词语。结论 平均星级和 VADER 情感评分都表明屈光患者的满意度很高。词频分析表明,患者重视护理的非临床方面,包括与工作人员的互动、保险范围和等待时间,这表明改善非临床因素可以提高患者对屈光手术的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care

Background

Online physician reviews increase transparency in health care, helping patients make informed decisions about their provider. Language processing techniques can quantify this data and allow providers to better understand patients' experiences, perspectives, and priorities. The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and understand the aspects of care that are valued by patients seeking refractive care using sentiment and word frequency analysis.

Methods

Written reviews and Star ratings for members of the Refractive Surgery Alliance Society practicing in the United States were collected from Healthgrades, a popular physician rating website. Surgeons with at least one written review were included in the study. Reviews were scored from -1 (most negative) to +1 (most positive) using Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner (VADER). Reviews were stratified by demographic characteristics, namely gender, region, and years in practice. Word frequency analysis was applied to find the most common words and phrases.

Results

A total of 254 specialists and 3104 reviews were analyzed, with an average of 4.4/5 stars and mean 48 ratings each. Most physicians had positive reviews (96%, average VADER ​= ​0.69). Younger physicians (<20 years since residency) had significantly higher Stars rating than senior peers (>20 years) (P ​< ​0.001). A similar trend was observed in VADER score (0.71 vs 0.69), although not statistically significant (P ​= ​0.06). No statistical differences were observed between Stars rating and VADER score by gender (P ​= ​0.66, P ​= ​0.83) or by geographical region (P ​= ​0.74, P ​= ​0.07). "Staff" (n ​= ​1269), "professional" (n ​= ​631), "office" (n ​= ​523), "questions" (n ​= ​424), and "friendly" (n ​= ​386) were frequently used in reviews, along with phrases such as "the staff" (n ​= ​273) and "my questions" (n ​= ​174). "Surgery" (n ​= ​719), "staff" (n ​= ​576), "procedure" (n ​= ​251), "experience" (n ​= ​243), and "professional" (n ​= ​240) were the most common words in positive reviews, while "surgery" (n ​= ​147), "office" (n ​= ​86), "staff" (n ​= ​54), "time" (n ​= ​47), and "insurance" (n ​= ​28) were the most commonly used in negative reviews.

Conclusions

Both the average Stars and VADER sentiment score suggest a high satisfaction among refractive patients. Word frequency analysis revealed that patients value non-clinical aspects of care, including interactions with staff, insurance coverage, and wait-times, suggesting that improving non-clinical factors could enhance patient satisfaction with refractive surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Global research trends in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma over the past decade: A bibliometric analysis Understanding parental hurdles in accessing strabismus treatment Research progress on the impact of cataract surgery on corneal endothelial cells Editorial Board TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1