Dataset Information

Assessing the reliability of automatic sentiment analysis tools on rating the sentiment of reviews of NHS dental practices in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Online reviews may act as a rich source of data to assess the quality of dental practices. Assessing the content and sentiment of reviews on a large scale is time consuming and expensive. Automation of the process of assigning sentiment to big data samples of reviews may allow for reviews to be used as Patient Reported Experience Measures for primary care dentistry.

Aim

To assess the reliability of three different online sentiment analysis tools (Amazon Comprehend DetectSentiment API (ACDAPI), Google and Monkeylearn) at assessing the sentiment of reviews of dental practices working on National Health Service contracts in the United Kingdom.

Methods

A Python 3 script was used to mine 15800 reviews from 4803 unique dental practices on the NHS.uk websites between April 2018 -March 2019. A random sample of 270 reviews were rated by the three sentiment analysis tools. These reviews were rated by 3 blinded independent human reviewers and a pooled sentiment score was assigned. Kappa statistics and polychoric evalutaiton were used to assess the level of agreement. Disagreements between the automated and human reviewers were qualitatively assessed.

Results

There was good agreement between the sentiment assigned to reviews by the human reviews and ACDAPI (k = 0.660). The Google (k = 0.706) and Monkeylearn (k = 0.728) showed slightly better agreement at the expense of usability on a massive dataset. There were 33 disagreements in rating between ACDAPI and human reviewers, of which n = 16 were due to syntax errors, n = 10 were due to misappropriation of the strength of conflicting emotions and n = 7 were due to a lack of overtly emotive language in the text.

Conclusions

There is good agreement between the sentiment of an online review assigned by a group of humans and by cloud-based sentiment analysis. This may allow the use of automated sentiment analysis for quality assessment of dental service provision in the NHS.

SUBMITTER: Byrne M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8673612 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health in general, and depression in particular, remain undertreated conditions. Mobile health (mHealth) apps offer tremendous potential to overcome the barriers to accessing mental health care and millions of depression apps have been installed and used. However, little is known about the effect of these apps on a potentially vulnerable user population and the emotional reactions that they generate, even though emotions are a key component of mental health. App reviews, spontaneously posted by the users on app stores, offer up-to-date insights into the experiences and emotions of this population and are increasingly decisive in influencing mHealth app adoption.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the emotional reactions of depression app users to different app features by systematically analyzing the sentiments expressed in app reviews.MethodsWe extracted 3261 user reviews of depression apps. The 61 corresponding apps were categorized by the features they offered (psychoeducation, medical assessment, therapeutic treatment, supportive resources, and entertainment). We then produced word clouds by features and analyzed the reviews using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count 2015 (Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc), a lexicon-based natural language analytical tool that analyzes the lexicons used and the valence of a text in 4 dimensions (authenticity, clout, analytic, and tone). We compared the language patterns associated with the different features of the underlying apps.ResultsThe analysis highlighted significant differences in the sentiments expressed for the different features offered. Psychoeducation apps exhibited more clout but less authenticity (ie, personal disclosure). Medical assessment apps stood out for the strong negative emotions and the relatively negative ratings that they generated. Therapeutic treatment app features generated more positive emotions, even though user feedback tended to be less authentic but more analytical (ie, more factual). Supportive resources (connecting users to physical services and people) and entertainment apps also generated fewer negative emotions and less anxiety.ConclusionsDevelopers should be careful in selecting the features they offer in their depression apps. Medical assessment features may be riskier as users receive potentially disturbing feedback on their condition and may react with strong negative emotions. In contrast, offering information, contacts, or even games may be safer starting points to engage people with depression at a distance. We highlight the necessity to differentiate how mHealth apps are assessed and vetted based on the features they offer. Methodologically, this study points to novel ways to investigate the impact of mHealth apps and app features on people with mental health issues. mHealth apps exist in a rapidly changing ecosystem that is driven by user satisfaction and adoption decisions. As such, user perceptions are essential and must be monitored to ensure adoption and avoid harm to a fragile population that may not benefit from traditional health care resources.