Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39121468›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Performance of Large Language Models in Patient Complaint Resolution: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Lorraine Pei Xian Yong, Joshua Yi Min Tung, Zi Yao Lee, Win Sen Kuan, Mui Teng Chua

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lorraine Pei Xian Yong *Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0009-0001-1885-6830
Joshua Yi Min Tung *Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4991-9790
Zi Yao Lee *Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0009-0000-4946-9457
Win Sen Kuan *Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2134-7842
Mui Teng Chua *Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-6326-4914

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient complaints are a perennial challenge faced by health care institutions globally, requiring extensive time and effort from health care workers. Despite these efforts, patient dissatisfaction remains high. Recent studies on the use of large language models (LLMs) such as the GPT models developed by OpenAI in the health care sector have shown great promise, with the ability to provide more detailed and empathetic responses as compared to physicians. LLMs could potentially be used in responding to patient complaints to improve patient satisfaction and complaint response time.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of LLMs in addressing patient complaints received by a tertiary health care institution, with the goal of enhancing patient satisfaction.

methodsAnonymized patient complaint emails and associated responses from the patient relations department were obtained. ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI, Inc) was provided with the same complaint email and tasked to generate a response. The complaints and the respective responses were uploaded onto a web-based questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate both responses on a 10-point Likert scale for 4 items: appropriateness, completeness, empathy, and satisfaction. Participants were also asked to choose a preferred response at the end of each scenario.

resultsThere was a total of 188 respondents, of which 115 (61.2%) were health care workers. A majority of the respondents, including both health care and non-health care workers, preferred replies from ChatGPT (n=164, 87.2% to n=183, 97.3%). GPT-4.0 responses were rated higher in all 4 assessed items with all median scores of 8 (IQR 7-9) compared to human responses (appropriateness 5, IQR 3-7; empathy 4, IQR 3-6; quality 5, IQR 3-6; satisfaction 5, IQR 3-6; P<.001) and had higher average word counts as compared to human responses (238 vs 76 words). Regression analyses showed that a higher word count was a statistically significant predictor of higher score in all 4 items, with every 1-word increment resulting in an increase in scores of between 0.015 and 0.019 (all P<.001). However, on subgroup analysis by authorship, this only held true for responses written by patient relations department staff and not those generated by ChatGPT which received consistently high scores irrespective of response length.

conclusionsThis study provides significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of LLMs in resolution of patient complaints. ChatGPT demonstrated superiority in terms of response appropriateness, empathy, quality, and overall satisfaction when compared against actual human responses to patient complaints. Future research can be done to measure the degree of improvement that artificial intelligence generated responses can bring in terms of time savings, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and stress reduction for the health care system.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic MailFemaleHumansInternetLanguageMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesartificial intelligenceChatGPTefficiencyempathyhealth care complaintlarge language modelspatient complaintpatient satisfactionresource allocation

Identifiers

PMID39121468
PMCPMC11344182

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.