ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Understanding online hospital patient reviews: a nationwide cross-sectional analysis of polarity, actionability and themes.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient experience data can support hospital quality improvement initiatives. Unsolicited online hospital reviews have emerged as an alternative data source in addition to traditional survey methods. However, the content and actionability of qualitative online reviews for Canadian hospitals are unknown.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study analysing Google Review text comments of Canadian acute care hospitals from 2017 to 2022. We analysed a random sample of 1000 comments from June 2017 to June 2022. We characterised the polarity, actionability and thematic content of these comments.
resultsPatients were more likely to leave negative reviews (47.9%) than mixed (19.8%) or positive (32.3%) reviews. Most reviews (74.0%) were semiactionable or very actionable. Negative or mixed reviews were generally more actionable than positive reviews (p<0.001). Lastly, patients were most likely to comment on interpersonal interactions with staff and wait times for care.
conclusionsQualitative online patient reviews contain actionable feedback. This can provide a source of real-time data to monitor and improve on patient experience.
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.