Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care

Victoria Vought; Rita Vought; Andrew S. Lee; Irene Zhou; Mansi Garneni; Steven A. Greenstein

doi:10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care

Full Length Article | 更新时间：2024-05-29

- Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care
- Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care
- 眼科实践与研究新进展 2024年4卷第2期页码：78-83
- 作者机构：
  
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School,NJ,Newark,USA
  2. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis,MO,USA
  3. Cornea and Laser Eye Institute, Teaneck,NJ,USA
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002
  中图分类号：
- 纸质出版日期：2024，
扫描看全文
Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care[J]. 眼科实践与研究新进展, 2024,4(2):78-83.

Victoria Vought, Rita Vought, Andrew S. Lee, et al. Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care[J]. AOPR, 2024,4(2):78-83.
Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care[J]. 眼科实践与研究新进展, 2024,4(2):78-83. DOI： 10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002.

Victoria Vought, Rita Vought, Andrew S. Lee, et al. Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care[J]. AOPR, 2024,4(2):78-83. DOI： 10.1016/j.aopr.2024.03.002.

摘要

Abstract

BackgroundOnline 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.MethodsWritten 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.ResultsA total of 254 specialists and 3104 reviews were analyzed

with an average of 4.4/5 stars a

nd 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) (

0.001). A similar trend was observed in VADER score (0.71 vs 0.69)

although not statistically significant (

= 0.06). No statistical differences were observed between Stars rating and VADER score by gender (

= 0.66

= 0.83) or by geographical region (

= 0.74

= 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.ConclusionsBoth 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.

关键词

Keywords

Patient sentimentQuality improvementPhysician reviews

references

1 D.A. Hanauer, K. Zheng, D.C. Singer, et al.Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites JAMA, 311 (7) (2014), pp. 734-735, 10.1001/jama.2013.283194

2 V. Vasan, C.P. Cheng, D.K. Lerner, et al.A natural language processing approach to uncover patterns among online ratings of otolaryngologists J Laryngol Otol (2023), pp. 1-5, 10.1017/S0022215123000476

3 J.E. Tang, et al.Using sentiment analysis to understand what patients are saying about hand surgeons online Hand, 18 (5) (2021), 10.1177/15589447211060439

4 V. Vought, R. Vought, A. Herzog, et al.Application of patient sentiment analysis to evaluate glaucoma care Ophthalmology Glaucoma (2023), 10.1016/j.ogla.2023.12.004

5 V. Vought, et al.Evaluating pediatric ophthalmic care using sentiment analysis of physician review sites J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 0 (0) (2024), pp. 1-8, 10.3928/01913913-20240108-01

6 S.D. Kanaparthi, A. Patle, K.J. NaikPrediction and detection of emotional tone in online social media mental disorder groups using regression and recurrent neural networks Multimed Tool Appl (2023), 10.1007/s11042-023-15316-x 2023/04/25

7 S. Elbagir, J. YangTwitter sentiment analysis using natural language toolkit and VADER sentiment Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, 122 (2019), p. 16 https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811215094_0005

8 C. Hutto, E. GilbertVader: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, 8 (1) (2014), pp. 216-225 https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550

9 L.R. Butler, et al.Building better pediatric surgeons: a sentiment analysis of online physician review websites J Children’s Orthopaed, 16 (6) (2022), pp. 498-504, 10.1177/18632521221133812 PMID: 36483646 PMCID: PMC9723867

10 M. McMullen, P.A. NetlandWait time as a driver of overall patient satisfaction in an ophthalmology clinic Clin Ophthalmol (2013), pp. 1655-1660, 10.2147/OPTH.S49382 PMID: 23986630 PMCID: PMC3754818

11 A. Serdarov, B. Bozkurt, Y. Karaküçük, et al.Clinical performance and patient satisfaction of hybrid contact lenses in patients with keratoconus (in eng) Turk J Ophthalmol, 53 (4) (2023), pp. 206-212, 10.4274/tjo.galenos.2022.43077

12 H. Ziaei, M. Katibeh, A. Eskandari, et al.Determinants of patient satisfaction with ophthalmic services BMC Res Notes, 4 (1) (2011), pp. 1-4, 10.1186/1756-0500-4-7 PMID: 21235808 PMCID: PMC3037326

13 R. Jagadeesan, D.N. Kalyan, P. Lee, et al.Use of a standardized patient satisfaction questionnaire to assess the quality of care provided by ophthalmology residents Ophthalmology, 115 (4) (2008), pp. 738-743, 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.05.033 e3. PMID: 17716737

14 D.E. Savage, S.M. PantanelliAn update on intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery (in eng) Curr Opin Ophthalmol (Oct 12 2023), 10.1097/icu.0000000000001004

15 A.C. Onishi, C. Lee-Choi, A.H. MarvastiTopography-guided excimer laser ablation (in eng) Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 34 (4) (Jul 1 2023), pp. 296-302, 10.1097/icu.0000000000000957

16 Y. Du, J. Meng, W. He, et al.Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review (in eng) Front Med, 10 (2023), Article 1128818, 10.3389/fmed.2023.1128818

17 S. Matsuguma, K. Negishi, M. Kawashima, et al.Patients’ satisfaction and subjective happiness after refractive surgery for myopia Patient Prefer Adherence (2018), pp. 1901-1906, 10.2147/PPA.S169902 PMID: 30288030 PMCID: PMC6161728

18 S.C. Schallhorn, K.A. Hettinger, D. Teenan, et al.Predictors of patient satisfaction after refractive lens exchange with an extended depth of focus IOL J Refract Surg, 36 (3) (2020), pp. 175-184, 10.3928/1081597X-20200211-01 PMID: 32159822

19 U. C. Bureau. "Geographic Levels." United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance-geographies/levels.html (accessed 8/January, 2023).

20 K. Okike, T.K. Peter-Bibb, K.C. Xie, et al.Association between physician online rating and quality of care (in eng) J Med Internet Res, 18 (12) (Dec 13 2016), Article e324, 10.2196/jmir.6612

21 E.R. Smith, C. Clarke, S. Linnemeyer, et al.What do your patients think of you? An analysis of 84 230 physician review website reviews in ophthalmology Ophthalmology, 127 (3) (2020), pp. 426-427, 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.016 PMID: 31987641

22 J.J. Jo, C.P. Cheng, S. Ying, et al.Physician review websites: understanding patient satisfaction with ophthalmologists using natural language processing J Ophthalmol, 2023 (2023), Article 4762460, 10.1155/2023/4762460 2023/03/08

23 E.S. Lau, et al.Does patient-physician gender concordance influence patient perceptions or outcomes? J Am Coll Cardiol, 77 (8) (2021), pp. 1135-1138, 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.12.031 PMID: 33632488

24 S. Chekijian, et al.Association between patient-physician gender concordance and patient experience scores. Is there gender bias? Am J Emerg Med, 45 (2021), pp. 476-482, 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.090 PMID: 33069544

25 K.D. Bertakis, P. Franks, R. AzariEffects of physician gender on patient satisfaction J Am Med Wom Assoc, 58 (2) (2003), pp. 69-75 1972.PMID: 12744418

26 J.A. Hall, P. Gulbrandsen, F.A. DahlPhysician gender, physician patient-centered behavior, and patient satisfaction: a study in three practice settings within a hospital Patient Educ Counsel, 95 (3) (2014), pp. 313-318, 10.1016/j.pec.2014.03.015 PMID: 24731957

27 I. Weinhold, S. GurtnerRural - urban differences in determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care Soc Sci Med, 212 (2018), pp. 76-85, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.019

28 M. Kalavar, A. Watane, K.M. Cavuoto, et al.Demographic variations in patient populations and regional distributions between male and female ophthalmologists in the United States: cross-sectional analysis Semin Ophthalmol, 36 (2021), pp. 633-640, 10.1080/08820538.2021.1891264 Taylor & Francis, PMID: 33616481

29 C. Rasendran, G. Tye, K. Knusel, et al.Demographic and socioeconomic differences in outpatient ophthalmology utilization in the United States Am J Ophthalmol, 218 (2020), pp. 156-163, 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.05.022 2020/10/01/

30 I.B. de Groot, W. Otten, J. Dijs-Elsinga, et al.Choosing between hospitals: the influence of the experiences of other patients Med Decis Making, 32 (6) (2012), pp. 764-778, 10.1177/0272989x12443416

31 H. Xiao, J.P. BarberThe effect of perceived health status on patient satisfaction Value Health, 11 (4) (2008), pp. 719-725, 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00294.x 2008/07/01/

32 N. Owusu-Frimpong, S. Nwankwo, D. BabaMeasuring service quality and patient satisfaction with access to public and private healthcare delivery (in English) Int J Public Sect Manag, 23 (3) (2010), pp. 203-220, 10.1108/09513551011032455 2023-08-07 2010

33 L. Shi, et al.Reducing disparities in access to primary care and patient satisfaction with care: the role of health centers J Health Care Poor Underserved, 24 (1) (2013), pp. 56-66, 10.1353/hpu.2013.0022 PMID: 23377717

34 M. Yusufu, J. Bukhari, X. Yu, et al.Challenges in eye care in the asia-pacific region Asia-Pacific J Ophthalmol, 10 (5) (2021) [Online] https://journals.lww.com/apjoo/fulltext/2021/10000/challenges_in_eye_care_in_the_asia_pacific_region.2.aspx

35 Y. Tang, et al.Prevalence and time trends of refractive error in Chinese children: a systematic review and meta-analysis (in eng) J Glob Health, 11 (2021), Article 08006, 10.7189/jogh.11.08006

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

暂无数据