ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
From words to action? A scoping review on automatic sentiment analysis of patient experience comments from online sources and surveys.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.
- Exploiting survey and online patient experience comments in general practice: validating a fine-tuned language model for automatic sentiment analysis.Family practice · 2026Article
- Mapping online patient reviews onto a data-informed service-experience framework: a content analysis of tertiary hospitals in Wuxi, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomatic analysis of free-text patient comments enables the efficient processing of large feedback volumes, reducing reliance on manual review. A 2021 review examined natural language processing (NLP) and sentiment analysis (SA) in patient experience research; however, recent advances in deep learning and generative artificial intelligence (AI) call for an updated synthesis.
objectivesThis scoping review aims to map and summarise recent studies applying SA to unstructured patient experience data related to healthcare services.
methodsFollowing Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase and APA PsycINFO. We included studies published from January 2020 to March 2024 in English or a Scandinavian language. Eligible studies analysed patient feedback using NLP techniques and described the development or validation of SA models. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data, which were presented in tables both tabular and narrative forms.
results30 studies were included, primarily from the USA, Europe and Asia. Patient comments were mostly sourced from online platforms such as social media. Feedback largely concerned hospital care. 18 studies employed rule-based SA approaches, while 12 applied supervised machine learning (ML) and only 4 studies used deep learning models. Few addressed the visualisation or practical applications in healthcare.
conclusionDespite significant progress, modern methods like deep learning and generative AI remain underused in SA of patient-experience data. Limited focus on implementation restricts SA's role in quality improvement. Future research should assess advanced methods and their cost-effectiveness versus traditional ML.
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.