Emotional differences based on comments on doctor-patient disputes with varying levels of severity

IF 3.9 4区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Jing-Ru Lu, Yu-Han Wei, Xin Wang, Yu-Qing Zhang, Jia-Yi Shao, Jiang-Jie Sun
{"title":"Emotional differences based on comments on doctor-patient disputes with varying levels of severity","authors":"Jing-Ru Lu, Yu-Han Wei, Xin Wang, Yu-Qing Zhang, Jia-Yi Shao, Jiang-Jie Sun","doi":"10.5498/wjp.v14.i7.1068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n The risks associated with negative doctor-patient relationships have seriously hindered the healthy development of medical and healthcare and aroused widespread concern in society. The number of public comments on doctor-patient relationship risk events reflects the degree to which the public pays attention to such events.\n AIM\n To explore public emotional differences, the intensity of comments, and the positions represented at different levels of doctor-patient disputes.\n METHODS\n Thirty incidents of doctor-patient disputes were collected from Weibo and TikTok, and 3655 related comments were extracted. The number of comment sentiment words was extracted, and the comment sentiment value was calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare differences between each variable group at different levels of incidence. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to examine associations between variables. Regression analysis was used to explore factors influencing scores of comments on incidents.\n RESULTS\n The study results showed that public comments on media reports of doctor-patient disputes at all levels are mainly dominated by “good” and “disgust” emotional states. There was a significant difference in the comment scores and the number of partial emotion words between comments on varying levels of severity of doctor-patient disputes. The comment score was positively correlated with the number of emotion words related to positive, good, and happy) and negatively correlated with the number of emotion words related to negative, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness.\n CONCLUSION\n The number of emotion words related to negative, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness directly influences comment scores, and the severity of the incident level indirectly influences comment scores.","PeriodicalId":23896,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v14.i7.1068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND The risks associated with negative doctor-patient relationships have seriously hindered the healthy development of medical and healthcare and aroused widespread concern in society. The number of public comments on doctor-patient relationship risk events reflects the degree to which the public pays attention to such events. AIM To explore public emotional differences, the intensity of comments, and the positions represented at different levels of doctor-patient disputes. METHODS Thirty incidents of doctor-patient disputes were collected from Weibo and TikTok, and 3655 related comments were extracted. The number of comment sentiment words was extracted, and the comment sentiment value was calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare differences between each variable group at different levels of incidence. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to examine associations between variables. Regression analysis was used to explore factors influencing scores of comments on incidents. RESULTS The study results showed that public comments on media reports of doctor-patient disputes at all levels are mainly dominated by “good” and “disgust” emotional states. There was a significant difference in the comment scores and the number of partial emotion words between comments on varying levels of severity of doctor-patient disputes. The comment score was positively correlated with the number of emotion words related to positive, good, and happy) and negatively correlated with the number of emotion words related to negative, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness. CONCLUSION The number of emotion words related to negative, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness directly influences comment scores, and the severity of the incident level indirectly influences comment scores.
基于不同严重程度的医患纠纷评论的情感差异
背景 负面医患关系风险严重阻碍了医疗卫生事业的健康发展,引起了社会的广泛关注。公众对医患关系风险事件的评论数量反映了公众对此类事件的关注程度。目的 探讨医患纠纷中公众的情绪差异、评论强度以及不同层面所代表的立场。方法 从微博和嘀嗒中收集 30 起医患纠纷事件,提取相关评论 3655 条。提取评论情感词数,计算评论情感值。采用 Kruskal-Wallis H 检验比较各变量组在不同发生率水平下的差异。斯皮尔曼相关分析用于研究变量之间的关联。回归分析用于探讨影响事件评论得分的因素。结果 研究结果显示,公众对各级媒体医患纠纷报道的评论主要以 "好 "和 "反感 "两种情绪状态为主。不同严重程度医患纠纷的评论在评论得分和部分情绪词数量上存在明显差异。评论得分与正面、好的和开心的情绪词数量呈正相关,与负面、愤怒、厌恶、恐惧和悲伤的情绪词数量呈负相关。结论 与负面、愤怒、厌恶、恐惧和悲伤相关的情绪词数量直接影响评论得分,事件的严重程度间接影响评论得分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Psychiatry (WJP) is a high-quality, peer reviewed, open-access journal. The primary task of WJP is to rapidly publish high-quality original articles, reviews, editorials, and case reports in the field of psychiatry. In order to promote productive academic communication, the peer review process for the WJP is transparent; to this end, all published manuscripts are accompanied by the anonymized reviewers’ comments as well as the authors’ responses. The primary aims of the WJP are to improve diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive modalities and the skills of clinicians and to guide clinical practice in psychiatry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信