Çocuk Hastanelerine İlişkin Çevrimiçi Kullanıcı Yorumlarında Hastane Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi: Nitel Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, çocuk hastanelerine ilişkin çevrimiçi kullanıcı yorumlarında ifade edilen hastane deneyimlerini tümevarımsal içerik analiziyle incelemek, bu deneyimlerin yoğunlaştığı tematik alanları belirlemek ve yıldız puanları ile metinsel değerlendirme yönü arasındaki uyumu değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Bu tanımlayıcı nitel çalışmada, Türkiye’de yalnızca çocuklara sağlık hizmeti sunan üç devlet çocuk hastanesine ilişkin kamuya açık Google Haritalar kullanıcı yorumları incelenmiştir. 2022 yılı ve sonrasında yayımlanan yorumlar değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Erişilebilen 499 kaydın 136’sı metinsiz ve 13’ü konu dışı olduğu için dışlanmış, toplam 350 yorum analize dâhil edilmiştir. Veriler tümevarımsal içerik analizi yaklaşımıyla çözümlenmiştir. Kodlama süreci sonunda 88 koddan oluşan nihai kod kitabı geliştirilmiş ve bu kodlar 22 alt tema ile 7 ana tema altında yapılandırılmıştır. Bulgular: En sık temsil edilen tema “İletişim, Personel Tutumu ve İnsani Etkileşim”(n=184, %52.6) olmuş;bunu “Bütünsel Yargı ve Tercih Davranışı” (n=171, %48.9), “Erişim, Randevu ve Süreç Akışı” (n=104, %29.7), “Klinik Yetkinlik, Tedavi ve Hasta Güvenliği” (n=93, %26.6), “Fiziksel Ortam, Hijyen ve Destek Hizmetleri”(n=79, %22.6), “Çocuğa ve Aileye Özgü Bakım Deneyimi” (n=78, %22.3) ve “Kurumsal ve Sistemsel Sorumluluk”(n=61, %17.4) izlemiştir. Yorumların 174’ü (%49.7) olumsuz, 110’u (%31.4) olumlu, 64’ü (%18.3) karma ve 2’si (%0.6) nötr olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Yıldız puanları genel olarak metinsel değerlendirme yönüyle uyumlu olmakla birlikte, karma yorumlar ve yıldız puanı ile metinsel yön arasında açık uyumsuzluk bulunan dokuz yorum (%2.6), sayısal puanların bildirilen deneyimlerin karmaşıklığını tam olarak yansıtamadığını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar: Çocuk hastanelerine ilişkin çevrimiçi yorumlarda ifade edilen hastane deneyimleri çok boyutludur ve özellikle iletişim ve personel tutumlarının yanı sıra klinik bakım, erişim, fiziksel çevre, çocuğa ve aileye özgü gereksinimler ve kurumsal süreçler tarafından şekillenmektedir. Serbest metin çevrimiçi yorumlar, hasta ve aile deneyiminin değerlendirilmesinde ve çocuk hastanelerinde kalite geliştirme alanlarının belirlenmesinde tamamlayıcı bir veri kaynağı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aile Merkezli Bakım
• Çevrimiçi Yorumlar
• Çocuk Hastaneleri
• Hasta Deneyimi
• İletişim
• Nitel Araştırma

Destekleyen Kurum

This study received no financial support from any institution or individual.

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırmada, herhangi bir üyelik veya özel erişim izni gerektirmeksizin kamuya açık olarak erişilebilen Google Haritalar kullanıcı yorumları kullanılmıştır. Araştırmacılar yorum sahipleriyle doğrudan etkileşime girmemiş, katılımcılara herhangi bir müdahale uygulanmamış ve kişisel veri toplanmamıştır. Bu nedenle etik kurul onayı ve kurum izni alınmamıştır. Araştırma sürecinde Helsinki Bildirgesi’nin etik ilkeleri gözetilmiş; doğrudan ve dolaylı tanımlayıcı bilgiler kaldırılmış, kişi adları rol temelli standart ifadelerle değiştirilmiş ve hastane kimlikleri anonimleştirilmiştir.

Examining Hospital Experiences in Online User Reviews of Children’s Hospitals: A Qualitative Study

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to examine hospital experiences expressed in online user reviews of children’s hospitals using inductive content analysis, to identify the thematic areas in which these experiences were concentrated, and to assess the concordance between star ratings and textual evaluation direction. Method: This descriptive qualitative study analyzed publicly accessible Google Maps user reviews of three public children’s hospitals in Türkiye that exclusively provide healthcare services to children. Reviews published in 2022 or later were eligible. Of 499 accessible records, 136 records without textual content and 13 off-topic records were excluded, leaving 350 reviews for analysis. The data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. The coding process resulted in a final codebook comprising 88 codes, which were organized into 22 subthemes and 7 main themes. Results: The most frequently represented theme was “Communication, Staff Attitudes, and Interpersonal Interaction” (n=184, 52.6%), followed by “Overall Judgment and Preference Behavior” (n=171, 48.9%), “Access, Appointments, and Process Flow” (n=104, 29.7%), “Clinical Competence, Treatment, and Patient Safety” (n=93, 26.6%), “Physical Environment, Hygiene, and Support Services” (n=79, 22.6%), “Child-and Family-Specific Care Experience” (n=78, 22.3%), and “Institutional and System-Level Responsibility” (n=61, 17.4%). In terms of textual evaluation direction, 174 reviews (49.7%) were classified as negative, 110(31.4%) as positive, 64(18.3%) as mixed, and 2 (0.6%) as neutral. Star ratings were generally consistent with textual evaluation direction; however, the mixed reviews and the nine reviews (2.6%) showing a clear discrepancy between the star rating and the direction of the textual evaluation indicated that numerical ratings did not fully capture the complexity of the experiences expressed in online reviews. Conclusions: Hospital experiences expressed in online reviews of children’s hospitals were multidimensional and were shaped particularly by communication and staff attitudes, as well as by clinical care, access, the physical environment, child- and family-specific needs, and institutional processes. The textual content of online user reviews may provide a complementary source of information for evaluating patient and family experience and for identifying areas for quality improvement in children’s hospitals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Communication
• Children’s Hospitals
• Family-Centered Care
• Online Reviews
• Patient Experience
• Qualitative Research

Etik Beyan

The data used in this study were obtained from publicly accessible Google Maps user reviews that could be accessed without membership or special access permission. The researchers had no direct interaction with the individuals who posted the reviews. Because the data were publicly available and no direct interaction with users took place, ethics committee approval and institutional permission were not obtained for this study. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles and research integrity standards followed by the researchers’ institution, as well as the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. To protect the privacy of online reviewers and individuals mentioned in the reviews, direct and indirect identifiers were removed during data preparation. Personal names were replaced with standardized role-based expressions when necessary, and hospital identities were anonymized. Direct quotations were used only when they were necessary to illustrate the findings and were reported in a manner that did not allow individuals or institutions to be identified.

Kaynakça

1. Ali, H., Fatemi, Y., Cole, A., Tahat, S., & Ali, D. (2022). Listening to the voice of the hospitalized child: Comparing children’s experiences to their parents. Children, 9(12), 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121820
2. Boylan, A.-M., Williams, V., & Powell, J. (2020). Online patient feedback: A scoping review and stakeholder consultation to guide health policy. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 25(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819619870837
3. Bulto, L. N., Davies, E., Kelly, J., & Hendriks, J. M. (2024). Patient journey mapping: Emerging methods for understanding and improving patient experiences of health systems and services. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 23(4), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvae012
4. Czech, O., Wrzeciono, A., Rutkowska, A., Guzik, A., Kiper, P., & Rutkowski, S. (2021). Virtual reality interventions for needle-related procedural pain, fear and anxiety—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(15), 3248. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153248
5. Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013). A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open, 3(1), e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570
6. Dunsch, F., Evans, D. K., Macis, M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Bias in patient satisfaction surveys: A threat to measuring healthcare quality. BMJ Global Health, 3(2), e000694. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000694
7. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
8. Gillespie, A., & Reader, T. W. (2018). Patient-centered insights: Using health care complaints to reveal hot spots and blind spots in quality and safety. The Milbank Quarterly, 96(3), 530–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12338

9. Gualandi, R., Masella, C., Viglione, D., & Tartaglini, D. (2019). Exploring the hospital patient journey: What does the patient experience? PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0224899. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224899
10. Guillari, A., Giordano, V., Catone, M., Gallucci, M., & Rea, T. (2024). Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural needle pain in children (6–12 years): A systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 78, e102–e116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2024.06.025
11. Guzmán-Leguel, Y. M., & Rodríguez-Lara, S. Q. (2025). Assessment of patients’ quality of care in healthcare systems: A comprehensive narrative literature review. Healthcare, 13(14), 1714. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13141714
12. Hill, C., Knafl, K. A., & Santacroce, S. J. (2018). Family-centered care from the perspective of parents of children cared for in a pediatric intensive care unit: An integrative review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 41, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.11.007
13. Hodgson, C. R., Mehra, R., & Franck, L. S. (2024). Child and family outcomes and experiences related to family-centered care interventions for hospitalized pediatric patients: A systematic review. Children, 11(8), 949. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080949
14. Hong, Y. A., Liang, C., Radcliff, T. A., Wigfall, L. T., & Street, R. L. (2019). What do patients say about doctors online? A systematic review of studies on patient online reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(4), e12521. https://doi.org/10.2196/12521
15. Khanbhai, M., Anyadi, P., Symons, J., Flott, K., Darzi, A., & Mayer, E. (2021). Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to patient experience feedback: A systematic review. BMJ Health & Care Informatics, 28(1), e100262. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100262
16. Kuklinski, D., Vogel, J., & Geissler, A. (2021). The impact of quality on hospital choice: Which information affects patients’ behavior for colorectal resection or knee replacement? Health Care Management Science, 24(1), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-020-09540-2
17. Lessa, A. R. D., Machado, C. R., Costa, C. A. D., & Latour, J. M. (2026). Parents’ perception of family-centered care in the pediatric intensive care unit: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 93, 104338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2026.104338
18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
19. O’Connor, S., Brenner, M., & Coyne, I. (2019). Family-centred care of children and young people in the acute hospital setting: A concept analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(17–18), 3353–3367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14913
20. Quigley, D. D., Elliott, M. N., Slaughter, M. E., Lerner, C., & Hays, R. D. (2024). Narrative comments about pediatric inpatient experiences yield substantial information beyond answers to closed-ended CAHPS survey questions. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 76, e126–e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2024.02.016
21. Rao, S., Xue, H., Teuwen, D. E., Shi, H., & Yi, H. (2021). Measurements of quality of village-level care and patients’ healthcare-seeking behaviors in rural China. BMC Public Health, 21, 1873. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11946-8
22. Richman, E. H., Kuttner, N. P., Foster, L. O., Bruske, C. J., Pollock, J. R., Brinkman, J. C., & Little, M. T. M. (2023). Characterizing single-star negative online reviews of Orthopaedic Trauma Association members. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 31(8), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00631
23. Szewczyk, T., & Hoque, F. (2026). Improving patient experience in healthcare. Journal of Brown Hospital Medicine, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.56305/001c.147405
24. Taddio, A., & McMurtry, C. M. (2015). Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Paediatrics & Child Health, 20(4), 195–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/20.4.195
25. Toomey, S. L., Zaslavsky, A. M., Elliott, M. N., Gallagher, P. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Klein, D. J., Shulman, S., Ratner, J. A., McGovern, C., LeBlanc, J. L., & Schuster, M. A. (2015). The development of a pediatric inpatient experience of care measure: Child HCAHPS®. Pediatrics, 136(2), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0966
26. Toomey, S. L., Elliott, M. N., Zaslavsky, A. M., Klein, D. J., Ndon, S., Hardy, S., Wu, M., & Schuster, M. A. (2017). Variation in family experience of pediatric inpatient care as measured by Child HCAHPS. Pediatrics, 139(4), e20163372. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3372
27. van den Hoogen, A., & Ketelaar, M. (2022). Parental involvement and empowerment in paediatric critical care: Partnership is key! Nursing in Critical Care, 27(3), 294–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12727
28. Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 23(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544
29. Zakaria, M., Mazumder, S., Faisal, H. M., Zannat, R., Haque, M. R., Afrin, T., Cheng, F., & Xu, J. (2024). Physician communication behaviors on patient satisfaction in primary care medical settings in Bangladesh. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 15, 21501319241277396. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241277396
30. Zitek, T., Bui, J., Day, C., Ecoff, S., & Patel, B. (2023). A cross-sectional analysis of Yelp and Google reviews of hospitals in the United States. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open, 4(2), e12913. https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12913