| Literature DB >> 35742713 |
Yunkai Zhai1,2, Xin Song1,2, Yajun Chen1,2, Wei Lu1,2.
Abstract
Mobile medicine plays a significant role in optimizing medical resource allocation, improving medical efficiency, etc. Identifying and analyzing user concern elements from active online reviews can help to improve service quality and enhance product competitiveness in a targeted manner. Based on the latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic model, this study carries out a topic-clustering analysis of users' online comments and builds an evaluation index system of mobile medical users' satisfaction by using grounded theory. After that, the evaluation information of users is obtained through an emotional analysis of online comments. Then, in order to fully consider the uncertainty of decision makers' evaluations, rough number theory and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method are used to confirm the conclusions of experts and indicators and to evaluate the satisfaction of mobile medical users. The empirical results show that users are satisfied with the service quality and content quality of mobile medical apps, and less satisfied with the management and technology qualities. Therefore, this paper puts forward corresponding countermeasures from the aspects of strengthening safety supervision, strengthening scientific research, strengthening information audit, attaching importance to service quality management and strengthening doctors' sense of gain. This study uses text mining for index extraction and satisfaction analysis of online reviews to quantitatively evaluate user satisfaction with mobile medical apps, providing a reference for the improvement of mobile medical apps. However, there are still certain shortcomings in the current study, and subsequent studies can screen false reviews for a deeper study of online review information.Entities:
Keywords: LDA topic model; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation; mobile medical apps; online reviews; satisfaction evaluation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742713 PMCID: PMC9223860 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1General framework diagram.
Figure 2LDA probability model diagram.
Figure 3Emotional analysis.
Adverb dictionary.
| Degree Level | Adverbs of Degree | Weighting |
|---|---|---|
| Extremely | entirely, completely, absolutely, extremely...... | 2 |
| High | quite a few, special, really, extra, too...... | 1.75 |
| Medium | more, more and more, rather, increasingly, far...... | 1.5 |
| Low | slightly, a little, half a point, a few, small...... | 0.5 |
Figure 4Indicator weights.
Expert weight distribution table.
| Factors | Levels | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Occupation | High | 4 |
| Medium-high | 3 | |
| Low to medium | 2 | |
| Low | 1 | |
| Experience | 10 or more | 4 |
| 5~9 years | 3 | |
| 2~5 years | 2 | |
| Less than 2 years | 1 | |
| Background Knowledge | PhD | 4 |
| Master | 3 | |
| Undergraduate | 2 | |
| High School | 1 |
Top 7 topics and subject terms for online reviews of mobile medical apps.
| Total | Number of Supported Documents | Topics |
|---|---|---|
| 2592 | 524 | Time; Recognition; Interface; Customer; Service; Don’t want; Practical; Solution; Speechless; Report; Good; review |
| 368 | Flashback; Appointment; Registration; Phone; Information; Verification code; Not up to; Sign; No Binding | |
| 368 | Login; Show; Ads; Download; Open; Too bad; Tip; Network; Error; Failed | |
| 368 | Updates; Versions; Health; Appointments; System; Logistics; Vaccines; Recommendations; Members; Refunds | |
| 358 | Doctors; Hospitals; Reply; Professional; Ask a question; Consultations; Platform Register; Free; Attitude | |
| 308 | Like; Feel; Good; Can’t open; Accurate; Answer; Content; Satisfaction; Version; Privacy | |
| 298 | Record; Function; Data; Nice; Display; Member; Detail; Inoculation; Real; Great |
Figure 5Clustering visualization results of online review topics of mobile medical apps. The circle on the left corresponds to the seven themes, and the words on the right correspond to the topics. The distance between different circles indicates the closeness of different themes. If the circles overlap, there is a crossover between the features of different themes.
Figure 6User satisfaction evaluation system for mobile medical apps.
Expert weighting results.
| Evaluation Properties | Experts | Group Assessment Value | Standardization | Precise Weights | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| [8,8.25] | [8,8.25] | [8,8.25] | [8.25,9] | [8.0375,8.3625] | [0.896,1] | 0.41 |
|
| [6,6.75] | [6.75,7] | [6.75,7] | [6.75,7] | [6.6,6.95] | [0.438,0.55] | 0.33 |
|
| [5.5,6] | [5.5,6] | [5,5.5] | [5,5.5] | [5.225,5.725] | [0,0.159] | 0.26 |
|
| [6,6.75] | [6.5,7.25] | [6.25,7] | [6.75,7.5] | [6.3375,7.0875] | [0.546,1] | 0.36 |
|
| [5,5.75] | [5.34,6] | [5.75,7] | [5.34,6] | [5.436,6.35] | [0,0.553] | 0.30 |
|
| [6,6.375] | [6,6.375] | [6.16,6.75] | [6.375,7] | [6.12025,6.61875] | [0.414,0.716] | 0.34 |
|
| [6,6.25] | [6,6.25] | [6.25,7] | [6,6.25] | [6.1,6.55] | [0,0.242] | 0.29 |
|
| [7.75,8] | [7.75, 8] | [7.75,8] | [7,7.75] | [7.6375,7.9625] | [0.826,1] | 0.36 |
|
| [6.75,7.67] | [7.375,8] | [7.375,8] | [6.5,7.375] | [7.11875,7.84025] | [0.547,0.934] | 0.35 |
|
| [6,6.25] | [6,6.25] | [6.25,6.5] | [6.25,6.5] | [6.1375,6.3875] | [0.73,1] | 0.35 |
|
| [5,5.75] | [5.5,6.25] | [5.75,6.5] | [5.25,6] | [5.4625,6.2125] | [0,0.811] | 0.32 |
|
| [5.83,6.17] | [5.5,6] | [6,6.5] | [5.83,6.17] | [5.8155,6.2595] | [0.382,0.862] | 0.33 |
|
| [6,6.25] | [6,6.25] | [6,6.25] | [6.25,7] | [6.0375,6.3625] | [0,0.141] | 0.22 |
|
| [6.75,7] | [6.75,7] | [6,6.75] | [6.75,7] | [6.45,6.9] | [0.179,0.373] | 0.24 |
|
| [6,7] | [6.67,7.33] | [6.67,7.33] | [7,8] | [6.5855,7.3645] | [0.237,0.574] | 0.25 |
|
| [7.67,8.33] | [7,8] | [7.67,8.33] | [8,9] | [7.552,8.348] | [0.655,1] | 0.29 |
User satisfaction level affiliation for mobile medical apps.
| Very Satisfied | Satisfaction | General | Dissatisfaction | Very Dissatisfied | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 16 (0.12) | 27 (0.21) | 71 (0.55) | 13 (0.1) | 3 (0.02) |
|
| 7 (0.09) | 17 (0.21) | 30 (0.37) | 21 (0.26) | 6 (0.07) |
|
| 16 (0.14) | 23 (0.2) | 55 (0.47) | 19 (0.16) | 3 (0.03) |
|
| 30 (0.12) | 68 (0.26) | 118 (0.46) | 38 (0.15) | 5 (0.02) |
|
| 35 (0.24) | 36 (0.24) | 47 (0.32) | 22 (0.15) | 7 (0.05) |
|
| 24 (0.24) | 26 (0.26) | 37 (0.38) | 9 (0.09) | 3 (0.03) |
|
| 13 (0.09) | 37 (0.27) | 67 (0.48) | 20 (0.14) | 2 (0.02) |
|
| 1 (0.03) | 6 (0.15) | 17 (0.44) | 13 (0.33) | 2 (0.05) |
|
| 4 (0.04) | 8 (0.09) | 32 (0.34) | 44 (0.46) | 7 (0.07) |
|
| 32 (0.08) | 77 (0.18) | 237 (0.56) | 63 (0.15) | 12 (0.03) |
|
| 9 (0.03) | 19 (0.07) | 183 (0.62) | 68 (0.23) | 16 (0.05) |
|
| 8 (0.03) | 33 (0.1) | 217 (0.67) | 52 (0.16) | 12 (0.04) |
Figure 7Results of comprehensive evaluation value of secondary indicators.