20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aims of our study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems.

          Setting

          Publicly available symptom checkers for patient use.

          Participants

          Publicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes were developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher.

          Primary and secondary outcome measures

          System accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette.

          Results

          Twelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). Safety of disposition advice decreased with condition urgency (being 71.8% for emergency cases vs 87.3% for non-urgent cases). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems.

          Conclusions

          There is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study

          Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection). Main outcome measures For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations). Results The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations. Conclusions Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Access to Care and Use of the Internet to Search for Health Information: Results From the US National Health Interview Survey

            Background The insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people with health coverage in the United States. There is speculation that this increase in the number of insured could make accessing health care services more difficult. Those who are unable to access care in a timely manner may use the Internet to search for information needed to answer their health questions. Objective The aim was to determine whether difficulty accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to insurance coverage is associated with increased use of the Internet to obtain health information. Methods Survey data from 32,139 adults in the 2011 National Health Interview Study (NHIS) were used in this study. The exposure for this analysis was reporting difficulty accessing health care services or delaying getting care for a reason unrelated to insurance status. To define this exposure, we examined 8 questions that asked whether different access problems occurred during the previous 12 months. The outcome for this analysis, health information technology (HIT) use, was captured by examining 2 questions that asked survey respondents if they used an online health chat room or searched the Internet to obtain health information in the previous 12 months. Several multinomial logistic regressions estimating the odds of using HIT for each reported access difficulty were conducted to accomplish the study objective. Results Of a survey population of 32,139 adults, more than 15.90% (n=5109) reported experiencing at least one access to care barrier, whereas 3.63% (1168/32,139) reported using online health chat rooms and 43.55% (13,997/32,139) reported searching the Internet for health information. Adults who reported difficulty accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to their health insurance coverage had greater odds of using the Internet to obtain health information. Those who reported delaying getting care because they could not get an appointment soon enough (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.9-2.5), were told the doctor would not accept them as a new patient or accept their insurance (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5, respectively), or because the doctor’s office was not open when they could go (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.9-2.7) had more than twice the odds of using the Internet to obtain health information compared to those who did not report such access difficulties. Conclusions People experiencing trouble accessing health care services for reasons unrelated to their insurance status are more likely to report using the Internet to obtain health information. Improving the accuracy and reliability of health information resources that are publicly available online could help those who are searching for information due to trouble accessing health care services.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis

              Abstract Objectives Rising demand for emergency and urgent care services is well documented, as are the consequences, for example, emergency department (ED) crowding, increased costs, pressure on services, and waiting times. Multiple factors have been suggested to explain why demand is increasing, including an aging population, rising number of people with multiple chronic conditions, and behavioral changes relating to how people choose to access health services. The aim of this systematic mapping review was to bring together published research from urgent and emergency care settings to identify drivers that underpin patient decisions to access urgent and emergency care. Methods Systematic searches were conducted across Medline (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via the Web of Knowledge), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; via EBSCOhost). Peer‐reviewed studies written in English that reported reasons for accessing or choosing emergency or urgent care services and were published between 1995 and 2016 were included. Data were extracted and reasons for choosing emergency and urgent care were identified and mapped. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and findings were reported qualitatively using framework‐based narrative synthesis. Results Thirty‐eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were set in the United Kingdom (39.4%) or the United States (34.2%) and reported results relating to ED (68.4%). Thirty‐nine percent of studies utilized qualitative or mixed research designs. Our thematic analysis identified six broad themes that summarized reasons why patients chose to access ED or urgent care. These were access to and confidence in primary care; perceived urgency, anxiety, and the value of reassurance from emergency‐based services; views of family, friends, or healthcare professionals; convenience (location, not having to make appointment, and opening hours); individual patient factors (e.g., cost); and perceived need for emergency medical services or hospital care, treatment, or investigations. Conclusions We identified six distinct reasons explaining why patients choose to access emergency and urgent care services: limited access to or confidence in primary care; patient perceived urgency; convenience; views of family, friends, or other health professionals; and a belief that their condition required the resources and facilities offered by a particular healthcare provider. There is a need to examine demand from a whole system perspective to gain better understanding of demand for different parts of the emergency and urgent care system and the characteristics of patients within each sector.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Project administration
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Methodology
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Methodology
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Methodology
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                15 July 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 7
                : e0254088
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Methods Analytics Ltd, Sheffield, United Kingdom
                [2 ] University of Exeter Business School (INDEX), Exeter, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Department of Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
                [4 ] SAPPHIRE, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
                University of Utah, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/. (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: Doctorlink (funder) engaged Methods Analytics (a commercial entity) to undertake this research but were not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Employees of Doctorlink had sight of draft manuscripts but all decisions were made independently by the authorship team. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2812-4262
                Article
                PONE-D-20-21627
                10.1371/journal.pone.0254088
                8282353
                34265845
                5449d702-aee3-4dc5-a7d0-ba790bafd93a
                © 2021 Ceney et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 July 2020
                : 13 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 4, Pages: 16
                Funding
                This study was fully funded as an external review of the sector by Doctorlink Ltd. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [SS, AC, AG, BM and TP], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Triage
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Primary Care
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Artificial Intelligence
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Applied Mathematics
                Algorithms
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Simulation and Modeling
                Algorithms
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                General Practitioners
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                General Practitioners
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article