Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32460734›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

How to automatically turn patient experience free-text responses into actionable insights: a natural language programming (NLP) approach.

Simone A Cammel, Marit S De Vos, Daphne van Soest, Kristina M Hettne, Fred Boer, Ewout W Steyerberg, Hileen Boosman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Simone A CammelIT Department, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Postbus 9600, Postzone D-01-P, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. s.cammel@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6213-7147
Marit S De VosDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Daphne van SoestDepartment of Quality and Patient Safety, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Kristina M HettneDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Fred BoerDepartment of Quality and Patient Safety, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hileen BoosmanDepartment of Quality and Patient Safety, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient experience surveys often include free-text responses. Analysis of these responses is time-consuming and often underutilized. This study examined whether Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques could provide a data-driven, hospital-independent solution to indicate points for quality improvement.

methodsThis retrospective study used routinely collected patient experience data from two hospitals. A data-driven NLP approach was used. Free-text responses were categorized into topics, subtopics (i.e. n-grams) and labelled with a sentiment score. The indicator 'impact', combining sentiment and frequency, was calculated to reveal topics to improve, monitor or celebrate. The topic modelling architecture was tested on data from a second hospital to examine whether the architecture is transferable to another hospital.

resultsA total of 38,664 survey responses from the first hospital resulted in 127 topics and 294 n-grams. The indicator 'impact' revealed n-grams to celebrate (15.3%), improve (8.8%), and monitor (16.7%). For hospital 2, a similar percentage of free-text responses could be labelled with a topic and n-grams. Between-hospitals, most topics (69.7%) were similar, but 32.2% of topics for hospital 1 and 29.0% of topics for hospital 2 were unique.

conclusionsIn both hospitals, NLP techniques could be used to categorize patient experience free-text responses into topics, sentiment labels and to define priorities for improvement. The model's architecture was shown to be hospital-specific as it was able to discover new topics for the second hospital. These methods should be considered for future patient experience analyses to make better use of this valuable source of information.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingPatient Outcome AssessmentText MessagingHospitalsHumansLanguageQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesData scienceMachine learningNatural language processingPatient experience analysisPREMText analytics

Identifiers

PMID32460734
PMCPMC7251822

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.