| Literature DB >> 25855612 |
Yuchul Jung1, Cinyoung Hur, Dain Jung, Minki Kim.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The volume of health-related user-created content, especially hospital-related questions and answers in online health communities, has rapidly increased. Patients and caregivers participate in online community activities to share their experiences, exchange information, and ask about recommended or discredited hospitals. However, there is little research on how to identify hospital service quality automatically from the online communities. In the past, in-depth analysis of hospitals has used random sampling surveys. However, such surveys are becoming impractical owing to the rapidly increasing volume of online data and the diverse analysis requirements of related stakeholders.Entities:
Keywords: healthcare policy; hospital service factors; online health communities; quality factor analysis; recommendation type classification; social media-based key quality factors for hospitals
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25855612 PMCID: PMC4414905 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1An example of online community and extracted quality factors for hospitals.
Data statistics (from Naver and Daum Web portals).
| District | Threads, n | Messages, n | Messages per thread, n | Messages containing quality factors, n |
| Seoul | 10,832 | 54,392 | 5.02 | 12,421 |
| Daegu | 8072 | 47,419 | 5.87 | 4240 |
| Busan | 5965 | 28,910 | 4.85 | 9509 |
| Daejeon | 3952 | 22,475 | 5.69 | 2358 |
| Incheon | 775 | 5184 | 6.69 | 1525 |
| Gwangju | 2826 | 15,368 | 5.44 | 2012 |
| Total | 32,422 | 173,748 |
| 32,065 (18.45%) |
| Average | 5403.66 | 28,958 | 5.59 |
|
Figure 2Internet usage rate and number of threads.
Figure 3Social media-based key quality factors for hospitals.
Detailed categorizations and subordinate items of social media–based hospital service quality factors.
| Quality factor | Detailed quality factor | Description |
| Service | Kindness (f1/f2) | Kindness, courtesy related to doctor/nurse/hospital staff manners |
| Diagnose and explain in easy words/rough detail | ||
| Faithfulness (f3/f4) | Response to a request faithfully/carefully | |
| Professionalism | Professionalism (f5/f6/f7) | Technical knowledge, skills |
| Special medical courses, professional | ||
| Professor, director (rank) | ||
| Skill (f8/f9/f10) | Medical procedures/skills, experience | |
| Side effects, complications, medical malpractice, safety | ||
| Treatment effects, speed | ||
| Treatment (f11/f12/f13/f14) | Hospitalization, outpatient, inpatient | |
| Accuracy | ||
| Antibiotics, injections, prescription drugs (powder, liquid medicine, cold medicine) | ||
| Diagnosis, treatment, prescription, cure, appropriate (or over-) treatment | ||
| Process | Speed (f15/f16) | (Short/long) waiting time, dose standby, receiving the relevant treatment |
| Responding immediately to changes, ability to cope with emergencies | ||
| Cost (f17) | Low (or reasonable)/expensive medical costs | |
| System (f18/f19) | Efficient business processes (reception and express services), questionnaires, (basic/optional) medical care | |
| Environment | Convenience (f20/f21/f22/f23) | Transportation, distance (from residence), parking facilities |
| Reservations | ||
| Waiting room, convenient facilities | ||
| Office hours, dates, evening hours (weekends, Sundays, and late hours), closed hours | ||
| Sanitation (f24/f25) | Cleaning, management | |
| Disposable products, sanitary ware | ||
| Facility/ Equipment (f26/f27/f28/f29) | Hospitalization | |
| CT, MRI, equipment, tools, operating room, doctor’s office | ||
| Surgery, physical therapy, various tests, therapies, health screenings, hospital rounds | ||
| Hospital size | ||
| Types of hospital (public health center, university hospital, hospitals, clinics, and private hospitals) | ||
| Impression (e1/e2/e3/e4/e5) |
| Image of the hospital, atmosphere |
| Reliability, favorite hospitals, physician | ||
| Signs, new doctors, or hospital encountered for the first time | ||
| Tired of existing hospital | ||
| Impression of the doctor, doctor’s information (ie, mood, personality, gender, age) | ||
| Popularity (e6/e7/e8/e9/e10) |
| Rumor, tradition, reputation |
| Hospital name | ||
| Media, advertising | ||
| Well-known doctor (doctor’s name) | ||
| Anyone who knows the hospital |
Figure 4Steps for detecting quality factors and recommendation classification.
Evaluation results (reported as percentages).
| Region | Evaluation category | ||||||
| Hospital name extraction | Quality factors detection | Recommendation type classification | |||||
| Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | |
| Seoul | 68 | 83 | 75 | 93 | 95 | 94 | 76 |
| Daejeon | 91 | 72 | 80 | 96 | 91 | 93 | 82 |
| Daegu | 86 | 65 | 74 | 97 | 80 | 88 | 70 |
| Gwangju | 91 | 66 | 77 | 96 | 83 | 89 | 64 |
| Incheon | 79 | 77 | 78 | 88 | 93 | 90 | 61 |
| Busan | 87 | 73 | 79 | 98 | 82 | 89 | 67 |
| Average | 84 | 73 | 78 | 95 | 87 | 91 | 78 |
Figure 5An example of overall quality factor distributions.
Figure 6Negative attitude trends by year (for six cities).
In-depth analysis of negative attitude in 2009.
| Process | Environment | ||
| Items | Share, % | Items | Share, % |
| Long term | 73 | Reservation | 48 |
| Right now | 11 | Shot | 13 |
| Hospitalized | 10 | Examination | 9 |
| Basic | 5 | Health care center | 7 |
| Other | 1 | Other | 23 |
Figure 7Percentage of threads that mention “Emergency” in the Daegu region.
Co-occurrence ratios in negatively opinionated threads (Daegu region).
| Co-occurrence pair | Percentage |
| Emergency & Hospital D1 | 22 |
| Emergency & Hospital D2 | 16 |
| Emergency & Hospital D3 | 7 |
| Emergency & Hospital D4 | 31 |
| Emergency & Hospital D5 | 8 |