dc.contributor.author
Schmieding, Malte L
dc.contributor.author
Mörgeli, Rudolf
dc.contributor.author
Schmieding, Maike A L
dc.contributor.author
Feufel, Markus A
dc.contributor.author
Balzer, Felix
dc.date.accessioned
2021-10-08T15:32:15Z
dc.date.available
2021-10-08T15:32:15Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/32247
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-31975
dc.description.abstract
Background: Symptom 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. Objective: This study aims to compare triage accuracy between SCs and their potential users (ie, laypersons). Methods: On 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. Results: The 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%). Conclusions: Most 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.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
digital health
en
dc.subject
symptom checker
en
dc.subject
patient-centered care
en
dc.subject
eHealth apps
en
dc.subject
mobile phone
en
dc.subject
decision support systems
en
dc.subject
consumer health information
en
dc.subject
health literacy
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Benchmarking Triage Capability of Symptom Checkers Against That of Medical Laypersons: Survey Study
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
e24475
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.2196/24475
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Journal of Medical Internet Research
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
3
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
JMIR Publications
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
23
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
33688845
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1438-8871