Abstract

BackgroundSymptom checkers (SCs) are tools developed to provide clinical decision support to laypersons. Apart from suggesting probable diagnoses, they commonly advise when users should seek care (triage advice). SCs have become increasingly popular despite prior studies rating their performance as mediocre. To date, it is unclear whether SCs can triage better than those who might choose to use them.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare triage accuracy between SCs and their potential users (ie, laypersons).MethodsOn Amazon Mechanical Turk, we recruited 91 adults from the United States who had no professional medical background. In a web-based survey, the participants evaluated 45 fictitious clinical case vignettes. Data for 15 SCs that had processed the same vignettes were obtained from a previous study. As main outcome measures, we assessed the accuracy of the triage assessments made by participants and SCs for each of the three triage levels (ie, emergency care, nonemergency care, self-care) and overall, the proportion of participants outperforming each SC in terms of accuracy, and the risk aversion of participants and SCs by comparing the proportion of cases that were overtriaged.ResultsThe mean overall triage accuracy was similar for participants (60.9%, SD 6.8%; 95% CI 59.5%-62.3%) and SCs (58%, SD 12.8%). Most participants outperformed all but 5 SCs. On average, SCs more reliably detected emergencies (80.6%, SD 17.9%) than laypersons did (67.5%, SD 16.4%; 95% CI 64.1%-70.8%). Although both SCs and participants struggled with cases requiring self-care (the least urgent triage category), SCs more often wrongly classified these cases as emergencies (43/174, 24.7%) compared with laypersons (56/1365, 4.10%).ConclusionsMost SCs had no greater triage capability than an average layperson, although the triage accuracy of the five best SCs was superior to the accuracy of most participants. SCs might improve early detection of emergencies but might also needlessly increase resource utilization in health care. Laypersons sometimes require support in deciding when to rely on self-care but it is in that very situation where SCs perform the worst. Further research is needed to determine how to best combine the strengths of humans and SCs.

Highlights

  • MethodsUse of Symptom CheckersPatients obtain health-related information from health care professionals, but more frequently, information for patients is provided in print; on the web; and, most recently, via smartphone apps

  • The mean overall triage accuracy was similar for participants (60.9%, SD 6.8%; 95% CI 59.5%-62.3%) and Symptom checkers (SCs) (58%, SD 12.8%)

  • Both SCs and participants struggled with cases requiring self-care, SCs more often wrongly classified these cases as emergencies (43/174, 24.7%) compared with laypersons (56/1365, 4.10%)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

MethodsUse of Symptom CheckersPatients obtain health-related information from health care professionals, but more frequently, information for patients is provided in print; on the web; and, most recently, via smartphone apps. Symptom checkers (SCs) are tools developed to provide support to laypersons Users can enter their complaints and, with some SCs, demographic or health-related information (eg, age, sex, and past medical history) to obtain advice on the urgency of their complaints (triage advice) and the most likely diagnosis. The demand for this type of support is evident; in the United States, 1 in 3 people reported resorting to the internet for self-diagnosis [1], and a study from 2019 found that half of the patients involved in that study had investigated their symptoms with an online search engine before going to an emergency department [2]. It is unclear whether SCs can triage better than those who might choose to use them

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.