IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0001263.html

Advancing the science of qualitative patient preference assessment using large language models

Author

Listed:
  • Ted Grover
  • Emanuel Krebs
  • Deirdre Weymann
  • Morgan Ehman
  • Dean A Regier

Abstract

Patient experiences and perspectives are essential for shaping patient-centered healthcare. While large language models (LLMs) in healthcare are typically applied to specific clinical or patient-facing tasks, they have not been used for qualitative patient preference assessment, which often relies on thematic analysis to understand patient views expressed in interviews or focus groups. LLMs show initial promise for performing inductive thematic analysis of healthcare interview or focus group transcripts, yet no empirical studies have investigated LLMs to facilitate qualitative patient preference assessment. We employed the open-source Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-70B LLM to perform inductive thematic analysis on focus group transcripts from a previously published qualitative patient preference assessment study using three optimized prompt frameworks, and evaluated semantic similarity of LLM generated themes against human-analyzed themes using the Sentence-T5-XXL language embedding model. Sentence-level theme similarity was assessed using Jaccard similarity coefficients (0–1 range), computing coefficient scores across a broad range of discrete cosine similarity thresholds. We further evaluated LLM themes for similarity in lexical diversity and reading grade-level metrics and benchmarked semantic similarity results with published similarity thresholds previously used with qualitative healthcare data. All prompt frameworks generated themes with median Jaccard similarity coefficients with human-analyzed themes between 0.46–0.64, indicating moderate semantic overlap. Our best-performing framework instructed to pursue thematic saturation scored closest to human-analyzed themes on all reading grade-level metrics, and demonstrated 12% higher semantic overlap with human-analyzed themes compared to published benchmarks. Our worst-performing framework produced themes with moderate semantic overlap and hallucinated findings unidentified in human-analyzed themes. We demonstrate that LLMs can perform inductive thematic analysis of qualitative patient preference data, producing themes substantively similar in content and style to human-analyzed themes when augmented with sufficient domain-specific context. While LLMs may augment thematic analysis, the contextual nature of qualitative analysis remains a challenge requiring collaborative LLM frameworks integrating human expertise.Author summary: The experiences and preferences of patients provide valuable insights towards evaluating the risks and benefits of new health products, services, and technologies, and can help guide appropriate decision making along the development process. Patient interviews or focus groups are commonly used by researchers to develop a deep understanding of patient perspectives and the perceived benefits or risks of a new healthcare product, service, or technology. While this approach is effective, there is considerable manual effort and time required by researchers to uncover themes from the transcripts of these interviews or focus groups. In this study, we demonstrate that applying prompt optimization to open-source large language models can effectively and rapidly generate themes on patient preferences similar in content and style to human-analyzed themes. Our study can inform best practices for large language model use in thematic evidence generation of patient preferences to improve healthcare decision-making and accelerated patient-centered healthcare.

Suggested Citation

  • Ted Grover & Emanuel Krebs & Deirdre Weymann & Morgan Ehman & Dean A Regier, 2026. "Advancing the science of qualitative patient preference assessment using large language models," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001263
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001263
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001263&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001263?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dean A. Regier & David L. Veenstra & Anirban Basu & Josh J. Carlson, 2020. "Demand for Precision Medicine: A Discrete-Choice Experiment and External Validation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 57-68, January.
    2. Joanna Coast, 1999. "The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 345-353, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Kernick, 2002. "Health economics: an evolving paradigm but sailing in the wrong direction? A view from the front line," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 87-88, January.
    2. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    3. Natasha Palmer & Anne Mills, 2003. "Classical versus relational approaches to understanding controls on a contract with independent GPs in South Africa," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1005-1020, December.
    4. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    5. Hailemichael, Yohannes & Novignon, Jacob & Owusu, Lucy & Okyere, Daniel & Mtuy, Tara & Alemu, Abebaw Yeshambel & Ocloo, Edmond Kwaku & Koka, Eric & Palmer, Jennifer & Walker, Stephen L. & Gadisa, Enda, 2024. "The role of economic factors in shaping and constituting the household burden of neglected tropical diseases of the skin: Qualitative findings from Ghana and Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    6. Julie A. Campbell & Douglas Ezzy & Amanda Neil & Martin Hensher & Alison Venn & Melanie J. Sharman & Andrew J. Palmer, 2018. "A qualitative investigation of the health economic impacts of bariatric surgery for obesity and implications for improved practice in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(8), pages 1300-1318, August.
    7. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    8. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    9. Laura Porak & Rouven Reinke, 2024. "The contribution of qualitative methods to economic research in an era of polycrisis," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 31-49, June.
    10. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    11. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    12. Marjon van der Pol & Alan Shiell, 2007. "Extrinsic Goals and Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 406-413, July.
    13. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    14. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    15. Samantha Husbands & Susan Jowett & Pelham Barton & Joanna Coast, 2017. "How Qualitative Methods Can be Used to Inform Model Development," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 607-612, June.
    16. Konrad Obermann & Jasper Scheppe & Bernd Glazinski, 2013. "More Than Figures? Qualitative Research In Health Economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 253-257, March.
    17. Mohd Zuhair & Fuli Zhou & Saurabh Pratap & Ram Babu Roy, 2022. "Eliciting key attributes of health insurance in rural India: a qualitative analysis," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Russell, Steven & Gilson, Lucy, 2006. "Are health services protecting the livelihoods of the urban poor in Sri Lanka? Findings from two low-income areas of Colombo," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1732-1744, October.
    19. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    20. Lenger, Alexander & Kruse, Jan, 2012. "Rekonstruktive Forschungsmethoden in der deutschen Volkswirtschaftslehre: Eine explorative Erhebung zugrunde liegender Repräsentationsmuster," The Constitutional Economics Network Working Papers 02-2012, University of Freiburg, Department of Economic Policy and Constitutional Economic Theory.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.