ArticleJMIR formative research2022
Patient Experience and Satisfaction in Online Reviews of Obstetric Care: Observational Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities by Race and Urbanicity in Online Health Care Facility Reviews.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Investigating Patient Satisfaction Through Web-Based Reviews of Norwegian Dentists: Quantitative Study Using the Meaning Extraction Method.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- Year 2022 in Medical Natural Language Processing: Availability of Language Models as a Step in the Democratization of NLP in the Biomedical Area.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- COVID-19 contact tracing app reviews reveal concerns and motivations around adoption.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of care in labor and delivery is traditionally measured through the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems but less is known about the experiences of care reported by patients and caregivers on online sites that are more easily accessed by the public.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to generate insight into the labor and delivery experience using hospital reviews on Yelp.
methodsWe identified all Yelp reviews of US hospitals posted online from May 2005 to March 2017. We used a machine learning tool, latent Dirichlet allocation, to identify 100 topics or themes within these reviews and used Pearson r to identify statistically significant correlations between topics and high (5-star) and low (1-star) ratings.
resultsA total of 1569 hospitals listed in the American Hospital Association directory had at least one Yelp posting, contributing a total of 41,095 Yelp reviews. Among those hospitals, 919 (59%) had at least one Yelp rating for labor and delivery services (median of 9 reviews), contributing a total of 6523 labor and delivery reviews. Reviews concentrated among 5-star (n=2643, 41%) and 1-star reviews (n=1934, 30%). Themes strongly associated with favorable ratings included the following: top-notch care (r=0.45, P<.001), describing staff as comforting (r=0.52, P<.001), the delivery experience (r=0.46, P<.001), modern and clean facilities (r=0.44, P<.001), and hospital food (r=0.38, P<.001). Themes strongly correlated with 1-star labor and delivery reviews included complaints to management (r=0.30, P<.001), a lack of agency among patients (r=0.47, P<.001), and issues with discharging from the hospital (r=0.32, P<.001).
conclusionsOnline review content about labor and delivery can provide meaningful information about patient satisfaction and experiences. Narratives from these reviews that are not otherwise captured in traditional surveys can direct efforts to improve the experience of obstetrical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.