ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Developing a Framework for Online Review-Based Health Care Service Quality Assessment: Text-Mining Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public Perception of Health Care Before, During, and After COVID-19: Longitudinal Analysis of Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the development of online health care platforms, patient reviews have become an important source for assessing medical service quality. However, the critical aspects of quality dimensions in textual reviews remain largely unexplored. Objective: This study aims to establish a comprehensive medical service quality assessment framework by leveraging online review data. Such a framework would support large service providers, such as online platforms, to assess the quality of many doctors efficiently. Methods: We adopted a text-mining approach with theory-driven topic extraction from online reviews to develop a service quality assessment framework. The framework is based on topic and sentiment classification methods. We conducted an empirical analysis to assess the validity of the framework. Specifically, we examined if patients' sentiments regarding our extracted dimensions affect demand (number of consultation requests) due to quality signals reflected in these dimensions. Results: We develop a 5-dimensional health care service quality framework (HSQ-5D model). In the empirical study, patient demand is affected by these dimensions, including expertise (coefficient=1.12; P<.001), service delivery process (coefficient=5.60; P<.001), attitude (coefficient=0.82; P<.001), empathy (coefficient=2.65; P<.001), and outcome (coefficient=0.26; P<.001; through patients' perceived quality from reviews). The 5 dimensions can explain 85.52% of the variance in patient demand, while all information from online reviews can explain 85.67%. The results show the validity and the potential practical value of the proposed HSQ-5D model. Conclusions: This study explores how online reviews can be used to evaluate health care services, offering significant implications for health care management. Theoretically, we extend existing service quality frameworks by integrating text-mining analysis of online reviews, thereby enhancing the understanding of service quality assessment in the digital health context. Practically, the framework can allow health care platforms to identify and reveal doctors' service quality to reduce patients' information asymmetry and strengthen patient-provider relationships, ultimately contributing to a more effective and patient-centered health care system.
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.