Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38863193›Full record

ArticleJournal of Korean Academy of Nursing2024

[Structural Topic Modeling Analysis of Patient Safety Interest among Health Consumers in Social Media].

Nari Kim, Nam-Ju Lee

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

2 authors.

Nari KimColloege of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1386-7936
Nam-Ju LeeThe Research Institute of Nursing Science · College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. njlee@snu.ac.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0453-4088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to investigate healthcare consumers' interest in patient safety on social media using structural topic modeling (STM) and to identify changes in interest over time.

methodsAnalyzing 105,727 posts from Naver news comments, blogs, internet cafés, and Twitter between 2010 and 2022, this study deployed a Python script for data collection and preprocessing. STM analysis was conducted using R, with the documents' publication years serving as metadata to trace the evolution of discussions on patient safety.

resultsThe analysis identified a total of 13 distinct topics, organized into three primary communities: (1) "Demand for systemic improvement of medical accidents," underscoring the need for legal and regulatory reform to enhance accountability; (2) "Efforts of the government and organizations for safety management," highlighting proactive risk mitigation strategies; and (3) "Medical accidents exposed in the media," reflecting widespread concerns over medical negligence and its repercussions. These findings indicate pervasive concerns regarding medical accountability and transparency among healthcare consumers.

conclusionThe findings emphasize the importance of transparent healthcare policies and practices that openly address patient safety incidents. There is clear advocacy for policy reforms aimed at increasing the accountability and transparency of healthcare providers. Moreover, this study highlights the significance of educational and engagement initiatives involving healthcare consumers in fostering a culture of patient safety. Integrating consumer perspectives into patient safety strategies is crucial for developing a robust safety culture in healthcare.

Indexed as

Patient SafetySocial MediaHumansData MiningPatient SafetySocial Media

Identifiers

PMID38863193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.