ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Leveraging AI to Drive Timely Improvements in Patient Experience Feedback: Algorithm Validation.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Understanding and improving patient care is pivotal for health care providers. With increasing volumes of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) data in England, manual analysis of this patient feedback poses challenges for many health care organizations. This underscores the importance of automated text analysis, particularly in predicting sentiments and themes in real time. Objective: Leveraging machine learning and natural language processing, this study explores the utility of a supervised algorithm to systematically test and refine the algorithm's cross-contextual performance in diverse health care settings, addressing variations in population characteristics, geographical locations, and care settings, ultimately driving improvements based on patient feedback. Methods: The text analytics algorithm initially developed in a large acute trust in London was further tested in 9 health care organizations with diverse care settings across England. These trusts varied in technical capacity and resource, population demographics, and FFT free text datasets. Testing and validation of the algorithm were performed, including manual coding of a subset of retrospective comments. Technical infrastructure, including coding environments and packages for algorithm testing and deployment, was optimized. The algorithm was iteratively trained using bag of words from anonymized data, tailored to accommodate contextual variations, and tested for change in algorithm performance while simultaneously rectifying issues identified. Results: The algorithm demonstrated satisfactory overall accuracy (>75%) in predicting themes and sentiments embedded within free-text responses across a variety of care settings and population demographics. While the algorithm yielded strong and reusable models in relatively stable environments, such as adult inpatient care settings, the initial accuracy was notably lower in organizations providing services such as pediatrics and mental health. However, the accuracy of our algorithm significantly improved when individual trust coding templates were applied. Thematic saturation was reached after the fifth organization was recruited, and no further coding was required for the last 4 organizations. Subsequently, a framework and pipeline for deployment of the algorithm were developed to provide a standardized approach for implementation and analysis of FFT free text, ensuring ease of use. Conclusions: This study represents a significant step forward in leveraging free-text FFT data for valuable insights in diverse health care settings through the testing and development of a robust supervised learning text analytics algorithm. The disparity in some care settings was anticipated, given that the lexicon and phraseology used was inherently different from those prevalent in adult inpatient care (where the algorithm was developed). However, these challenges were addressed with further coding and testing. This approach enhanced the accuracy and reliability of the algorithm, encouraged inter- and intraorganizational collaboration, and shared learning.
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.