Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38026376›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyze large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques.

Lauren Towler, Paulina Bondaronek, Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Richard Amlôt, Tim Chadborn, Ben Ainsworth, Lucy Yardley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Lauren Towler *School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Paulina Bondaronek *Department of Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, United Kingdom.
Trisevgeni PapakonstantinouDepartment of Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, United Kingdom.
Richard AmlôtBehavioural Science and Insights Unit, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Tim ChadbornDepartment of Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, United Kingdom.
Ben Ainsworth *Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Lucy Yardley *School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council CV220-009Medical Research Council MC_PC_19068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Machine-assisted topic analysis (MATA) uses artificial intelligence methods to help qualitative researchers analyze large datasets. This is useful for researchers to rapidly update healthcare interventions during changing healthcare contexts, such as a pandemic. We examined the potential to support healthcare interventions by comparing MATA with "human-only" thematic analysis techniques on the same dataset (1,472 user responses from a COVID-19 behavioral intervention). Methods: In MATA, an unsupervised topic-modeling approach identified latent topics in the text, from which researchers identified broad themes. In human-only codebook analysis, researchers developed an initial codebook based on previous research that was applied to the dataset by the team, who met regularly to discuss and refine the codes. Formal triangulation using a "convergence coding matrix" compared findings between methods, categorizing them as "agreement", "complementary", "dissonant", or "silent". Results: Human analysis took much longer than MATA (147.5 vs. 40 h). Both methods identified key themes about what users found helpful and unhelpful. Formal triangulation showed both sets of findings were highly similar. The formal triangulation showed high similarity between the findings. All MATA codes were classified as in agreement or complementary to the human themes. When findings differed slightly, this was due to human researcher interpretations or nuance from human-only analysis. Discussion: Results produced by MATA were similar to human-only thematic analysis, with substantial time savings. For simple analyses that do not require an in-depth or subtle understanding of the data, MATA is a useful tool that can support qualitative researchers to interpret and analyze large datasets quickly. This approach can support intervention development and implementation, such as enabling rapid optimization during public health emergencies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Artificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningPandemicsPublic Healthinterventionsmachine learning techniquespublic healthqualitative analysistriangulation

Identifiers

PMID38026376
PMCPMC10644111

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.