Person Reference and Related Attributes in Positive and Negative Yelp Hospital Reviews.

Q4 Medicine
Camilla Vásquez, Melike Akay
{"title":"Person Reference and Related Attributes in Positive and Negative Yelp Hospital Reviews.","authors":"Camilla Vásquez, Melike Akay","doi":"10.3138/cam-2024-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the last decade, a number of studies from medical sciences have analyzed data from the reviewing platform Yelp to explore patient satisfaction. Many of these have adopted a thematic analytic approach and have consistently found that patients tend to discuss nonclinical issues far more frequently than they do clinical issues. Specifically, patient narratives frequently mention interpersonal interactions and communications with physicians and staff. Our study builds on this scholarship by providing a more fine-grained discourse analysis of Yelp reviews in order to better understand the ways in which patients refer to their encounters and interactions with doctors, nurses, and staff members in a set of hospital reviews. Our analysis of 100 positive and negative reviews of 10 hospitals found that reviews were often written by family members on behalf of patients rather than by the patients themselves. In addition, reviewers were far more likely to name specific individuals in positive reviews; conversely, negative reviews featured more impersonal constructions. The study also found that different types of linguistic resources (i.e., adjectives versus verbs) were used by reviewers for positively evaluating physicians and nurses, respectively, and that negative reviews of physicians, nurses, and staff discussed a range of different communicative behaviors. Finally, our findings suggest that some complaints about hospital employees may, in fact, point to larger, organization-level problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e20240025"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cam-2024-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the last decade, a number of studies from medical sciences have analyzed data from the reviewing platform Yelp to explore patient satisfaction. Many of these have adopted a thematic analytic approach and have consistently found that patients tend to discuss nonclinical issues far more frequently than they do clinical issues. Specifically, patient narratives frequently mention interpersonal interactions and communications with physicians and staff. Our study builds on this scholarship by providing a more fine-grained discourse analysis of Yelp reviews in order to better understand the ways in which patients refer to their encounters and interactions with doctors, nurses, and staff members in a set of hospital reviews. Our analysis of 100 positive and negative reviews of 10 hospitals found that reviews were often written by family members on behalf of patients rather than by the patients themselves. In addition, reviewers were far more likely to name specific individuals in positive reviews; conversely, negative reviews featured more impersonal constructions. The study also found that different types of linguistic resources (i.e., adjectives versus verbs) were used by reviewers for positively evaluating physicians and nurses, respectively, and that negative reviews of physicians, nurses, and staff discussed a range of different communicative behaviors. Finally, our findings suggest that some complaints about hospital employees may, in fact, point to larger, organization-level problems.

正面和负面Yelp医院评论中的人员参考和相关属性。
在过去的十年里,医学科学的一些研究分析了来自点评平台Yelp的数据,以探索患者满意度。其中许多采用了主题分析方法,并一致发现患者倾向于讨论非临床问题远多于临床问题。具体来说,患者叙述经常提到与医生和工作人员的人际交往和沟通。我们的研究建立在这一学术研究的基础上,通过对Yelp评论进行更细致的话语分析,以便更好地理解患者在一系列医院评论中提及他们与医生、护士和工作人员的接触和互动的方式。我们对10家医院的100条正面和负面评论进行了分析,发现这些评论往往是由患者的家属代表患者撰写的,而不是患者本人。此外,评论者更有可能在正面评论中点名具体的个人;相反,负面评论的特点是更多的非人格化结构。研究还发现,评论者分别使用不同类型的语言资源(即形容词与动词)对医生和护士进行正面评价,而对医生、护士和工作人员进行负面评价则讨论了一系列不同的交际行为。最后,我们的研究结果表明,对医院员工的一些投诉实际上可能指向更大的组织层面的问题。
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
Communication and Medicine
Communication and Medicine Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.
×
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