Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31805093›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Towards text mining therapeutic change: A systematic review of text-based methods for Therapeutic Change Process Research.

Wouter Smink, Anneke M Sools, Janneke M van der Zwaan, Sytske Wiegersma, Bernard P Veldkamp, Gerben J Westerhof

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wouter SminkDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9488-0202
Anneke M SoolsDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement & Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands.
Janneke M van der ZwaanNetherlands eScience Center (NWO), Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.
Sytske WiegersmaDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement & Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3512-8859
Bernard P VeldkampDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement & Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands.
Gerben J WesterhofDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Therapeutic Change Process Research (TCPR) connects within-therapeutic change processes to outcomes. The labour intensity of qualitative methods limit their use to small scale studies. Automated text-analyses (e.g. text mining) provide means for analysing large scale text patterns. We aimed to provide an overview of the frequently used qualitative text-based TCPR methods and assess the extent to which these methods are reliable and valid, and have potential for automation. We systematically reviewed PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify articles concerning change processes and text or language. We evaluated the reliability and validity based on replicability, the availability of code books, training data and inter-rater reliability, and evaluated the potential for automation based on the example- and rule-based approach. From 318 articles we identified four often used methods: Innovative Moments Coding Scheme, the Narrative Process Coding Scheme, Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale, and Conversation Analysis. The reliability and validity of the first three is sufficient to hold promise for automation. While some text features (content, grammar) lend themselves for automation through a rule-based approach, it should be possible to automate higher order constructs (e.g. schemas) when sufficient annotated data for an example-based approach are available.

Indexed as

TherapeuticsAutomationData MiningHumansRecords

Identifiers

PMID31805093
PMCPMC6894756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.