Comparing text mining and manual coding methods: Analysing interview data on quality of care in long-term care for older adults.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
20
04
2023
accepted:
24
09
2023
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
8
11
2023
entrez:
8
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In long-term care for older adults, large amounts of text are collected relating to the quality of care, such as transcribed interviews. Researchers currently analyze textual data manually to gain insights, which is a time-consuming process. Text mining could provide a solution, as this methodology can be used to analyze large amounts of text automatically. This study aims to compare text mining to manual coding with regard to sentiment analysis and thematic content analysis. Data were collected from interviews with residents (n = 21), family members (n = 20), and care professionals (n = 20). Text mining models were developed and compared to the manual approach. The results of the manual and text mining approaches were evaluated based on three criteria: accuracy, consistency, and expert feedback. Accuracy assessed the similarity between the two approaches, while consistency determined whether each individual approach found the same themes in similar text segments. Expert feedback served as a representation of the perceived correctness of the text mining approach. An accuracy analysis revealed that more than 80% of the text segments were assigned the same themes and sentiment using both text mining and manual approaches. Interviews coded with text mining demonstrated higher consistency compared to those coded manually. Expert feedback identified certain limitations in both the text mining and manual approaches. While these analyses highlighted the current limitations of text mining, they also exposed certain inconsistencies in manual analysis. This information suggests that text mining has the potential to be an effective and efficient tool for analysing large volumes of textual data in the context of long-term care for older adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37939098
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292578
pii: PONE-D-23-11158
pmc: PMC10631650
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0292578Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Hacking et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2023 Mar 30;388(13):1233-1239
pubmed: 36988602
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019 Nov;20(11):1386-1390.e1
pubmed: 31080161
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 15;17(14):
pubmed: 32679869
J Healthc Inf Manag. 2008 Summer;22(3):52-6
pubmed: 19267032
Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2021 Jul 20;4:165-187
pubmed: 34465177
BMJ Open Qual. 2021 Sep;10(3):
pubmed: 34548376
Qual Health Res. 2000 Sep;10(5):703-7
pubmed: 11066874
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):127
pubmed: 28830417
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 15;17(14):
pubmed: 32679736
Health Care Anal. 2005 Sep;13(3):203-21
pubmed: 16223211
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2021 Oct;25(10):3804-3811
pubmed: 34310332