How are Patients Describing You Online? A Natural Language Processing Driven Sentiment Analysis of Online Reviews on CSRS Surgeons.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2023
01 03 2023
Historique:
received:
27
07
2021
accepted:
29
06
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
10
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A quantitative analysis of written, online reviews of Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) surgeons. This study quantitatively analyzes the written reviews of members of the CSRS to report biases associated with demographic factors and frequently used words in reviews to help aid physician practices. Physician review websites have influence on a patient's selection of a provider, but written reviews are subjective. Sentiment analysis of writing through artificial intelligence can quantify surgeon reviews to provide actionable feedback. Online written and star-rating reviews of CSRS surgeons were obtained from healthgrades.com. A sentiment analysis package was used to obtain compound scores of each physician's reviews. The relationship between demographic variables and average sentiment score of written reviews were evaluated through t -tests. Positive and negative word and bigram frequency analysis was performed to indicate trends in the reviews' language. In all, 2239 CSRS surgeon's reviews were analyzed. Analysis showed a positive correlation between the sentiment scores and overall average star-rated reviews ( r2 =0.60, P <0.01). There was no difference in review sentiment by provider sex. However, the age of surgeons showed a significant difference as those <55 had more positive reviews (mean=+0.50) than surgeons >=55 (mean=+0.37) ( P <0.01). The most positive reviews focused both on pain and behavioral factors, whereas the most negative focused mainly on pain. Behavioral attributes increased the odds of receiving positive reviews while pain decreased them. The top-rated surgeons were described as considerate providers and effective at managing pain in their most frequently used words and bigrams. However, the worst-rated ones were mainly described as unable to relieve pain. Through quantitative analysis of physician reviews, pain is a clear factor contributing to both positive and negative reviews of surgeons, reinforcing the need for proper pain expectation management. Level 4-retrospective case-control study.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
A quantitative analysis of written, online reviews of Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) surgeons.
OBJECTIVE
This study quantitatively analyzes the written reviews of members of the CSRS to report biases associated with demographic factors and frequently used words in reviews to help aid physician practices.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Physician review websites have influence on a patient's selection of a provider, but written reviews are subjective. Sentiment analysis of writing through artificial intelligence can quantify surgeon reviews to provide actionable feedback.
METHODS
Online written and star-rating reviews of CSRS surgeons were obtained from healthgrades.com. A sentiment analysis package was used to obtain compound scores of each physician's reviews. The relationship between demographic variables and average sentiment score of written reviews were evaluated through t -tests. Positive and negative word and bigram frequency analysis was performed to indicate trends in the reviews' language.
RESULTS
In all, 2239 CSRS surgeon's reviews were analyzed. Analysis showed a positive correlation between the sentiment scores and overall average star-rated reviews ( r2 =0.60, P <0.01). There was no difference in review sentiment by provider sex. However, the age of surgeons showed a significant difference as those <55 had more positive reviews (mean=+0.50) than surgeons >=55 (mean=+0.37) ( P <0.01). The most positive reviews focused both on pain and behavioral factors, whereas the most negative focused mainly on pain. Behavioral attributes increased the odds of receiving positive reviews while pain decreased them.
CONCLUSION
The top-rated surgeons were described as considerate providers and effective at managing pain in their most frequently used words and bigrams. However, the worst-rated ones were mainly described as unable to relieve pain. Through quantitative analysis of physician reviews, pain is a clear factor contributing to both positive and negative reviews of surgeons, reinforcing the need for proper pain expectation management.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 4-retrospective case-control study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945670
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001372
pii: 01933606-202303000-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E107-E113Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Kwan G, Shaw JA, Murnane L. Internet Usage within Healthcare: How College Students Use the Internet to Obtain Health Information.. J Consum Health Internet. 2019;23:366–377.
Prestin A, Vieux SN, Chou W-YS. Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun. 2015;20:790–798.
Donnally CJ III, McCormick JR, Pastore MA, et al. Social media presence correlated with improved online review scores for spine surgeons. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e18–e25.
Nayyar A, Jadi J, Garimella R, et al. Are you on the right platform? A conjoint analysis of social media preferences in aesthetic surgery patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:1019–1032.
Bernstein DN, Melone G, Jubril A, et al. Evaluating social media use among active american members of the cervical spine research society. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34:E337–341.
Velasco BT, Chien B, Kwon JY, et al. Online ratings and reviews of american orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. Foot Ankle Spec. 2020;13:43–49.
Yu J, Samuel LT, Yalçin S, et al. Patient-recorded physician ratings: what can we learn from 11,527 online reviews of orthopedic surgeons? J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:S364–S367.
Li S, Lee-Won RJ, McKnight J. Effects of online physician reviews and physician gender on perceptions of physician skills and primary care physician (PCP) selection. Health Commun. 2019;34:1250–1258.
Donnally CJ III, Roth ES, Li DJ, et al. Analysis of internet review site comments for spine surgeons: how office staff, physician likeability, and patient outcome are associated with online evaluations. Spine. 2018;43:1725–1730.
Donnally CJ, McCormick JR, Li DJ, et al. How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;30:279–288.
Kalagara S, Eltorai AEM, DePasse JM, et al. Predictive factors of positive online patient ratings of spine surgeons. Spine J. 2019;19:182–185.
Melone G, Brodell J Jr, Hernandez C, et al. Online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons: analysis of 634 surgeons. Spine Deform. 2020;8:17–24.
Zhang J, Omar A, Mesfin A. Online ratings of spine surgeons: analysis of 208 surgeons. Spine. 2018;43:E722–E726.
Salzmann SN, Derman PB, Lampe LP, et al. Cervical spinal fusion: 16-year trends in epidemiology, indications, and in-hospital outcomes by surgical approach. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e280–e295.
Hutto C, Gilbert E. VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 2014;8.
Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, et al. Current trends in demographics, practice, and in-hospital outcomes in cervical spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39:476–481.
Oglesby M, Fineberg SJ, Patel AA, et al. Epidemiological trends in cervical spine surgery for degenerative diseases between 2002 and 2009. Spine. 2013;38:1226–1232.
Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, et al. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e38.
Joslin LE, Davis CR, Dolan P, et al. Quality of life and neck pain in nurses. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27:236–242.
Pedisic Z, Pranic S, Jurakic D. Relationship of back and neck pain with quality of life in the Croatian general population. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013;36:267–275.
Soroceanu A, Ching A, Abdu W, et al. Relationship between preoperative expectations, satisfaction, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical spine surgery: a multicenter study. Spine. 2012;37:E103–E108.
Krzanowska E, Liberacka D, Przewłocki R, et al. The frequency and risk factors for surgery dissatisfaction in patients undergoing lumbar or cervical surgery for degenerative spinal conditions. Psychol Health Med. 2020;27:1–11.
Carr FA, Healy KM, Villavicencio AT, et al. Effect on clinical outcomes of patient pain expectancies and preoperative Mental Component Summary scores from the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Presented at the 2011 Spine Section Meeting. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15:486–490.
Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop. 2014;43:359–363.
Bernstein DN, Mesfin A. Physician-review websites in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev. 2020;8:e0158.
Becker F, Sweeney B, Parsons K. Ambulatory facility design and patients’ perceptions of healthcare quality. HERD. 2008;1:35–54.