RESUMEN

The growing prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) in mobile health (mHealth) has given rise to a distinct subset of apps that provide users with diagnostic information using their inputted health status and symptom information-AI-powered symptom checker apps (AISympCheck). While these apps may potentially increase access to health care, they raise consequential ethical and legal questions. This paper will highlight notable concerns with AI usage in the health care system, further entrenchment of preexisting biases in the health care system and issues with professional accountability. To provide an in-depth analysis of the issues of bias and complications of professional obligations and liability, we focus on 2 mHealth apps as examples-Babylon and Ada. We selected these 2 apps as they were both widely distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic and make prominent claims about their use of AI for the purpose of assessing user symptoms. First, bias entrenchment often originates from the data used to train AI systems, causing the AI to replicate these inequalities through a "garbage in, garbage out" phenomenon. Users of these apps are also unlikely to be demographically representative of the larger population, leading to distorted results. Second, professional accountability poses a substantial challenge given the vast diversity and lack of regulation surrounding the reliability of AISympCheck apps. It is unclear whether these apps should be subject to safety reviews, who is responsible for app-mediated misdiagnosis, and whether these apps ought to be recommended by physicians. With the rapidly increasing number of apps, there remains little guidance available for health professionals. Professional bodies and advocacy organizations have a particularly important role to play in addressing these ethical and legal gaps. Implementing technical safeguards within these apps could mitigate bias, AIs could be trained with primarily neutral data, and apps could be subject to a system of regulation to allow users to make informed decisions. In our view, it is critical that these legal concerns are considered throughout the design and implementation of these potentially disruptive technologies. Entrenched bias and professional responsibility, while operating in different ways, are ultimately exacerbated by the unregulated nature of mHealth.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) symptom checker models should be trained using real-world patient data to improve their diagnostic accuracy. Given that AI-based symptom checkers are currently used in clinical practice, their performance should improve over time. However, longitudinal evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of these symptom checkers are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the longitudinal changes in the accuracy of differential diagnosis lists created by an AI-based symptom checker used in the real world. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. Patients who visited an outpatient clinic without an appointment between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2022, and who were admitted to a community hospital in Japan within 30 days of their index visit were considered eligible. We only included patients who underwent an AI-based symptom checkup at the index visit, and the diagnosis was finally confirmed during follow-up. Final diagnoses were categorized as common or uncommon, and all cases were categorized as typical or atypical. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the differential diagnosis list created by the AI-based symptom checker, defined as the final diagnosis in a list of 10 differential diagnoses created by the symptom checker. To assess the change in the symptom checker's diagnostic accuracy over 3 years, we used a chi-square test to compare the primary outcome over 3 periods: from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020 (first year); from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021 (second year); and from May 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (third year). RESULTS: A total of 381 patients were included. Common diseases comprised 257 (67.5%) cases, and typical presentations were observed in 298 (78.2%) cases. Overall, the accuracy of the differential diagnosis list created by the AI-based symptom checker was 172 (45.1%), which did not differ across the 3 years (first year: 97/219, 44.3%; second year: 32/72, 44.4%; and third year: 43/90, 47.7%; P=.85). The accuracy of the differential diagnosis list created by the symptom checker was low in those with uncommon diseases (30/124, 24.2%) and atypical presentations (12/83, 14.5%). In the multivariate logistic regression model, common disease (P<.001; odds ratio 4.13, 95% CI 2.50-6.98) and typical presentation (P<.001; odds ratio 6.92, 95% CI 3.62-14.2) were significantly associated with the accuracy of the differential diagnosis list created by the symptom checker. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-year longitudinal survey of the diagnostic accuracy of differential diagnosis lists developed by an AI-based symptom checker, which has been implemented in real-world clinical practice settings, showed no improvement over time. Uncommon diseases and atypical presentations were independently associated with a lower diagnostic accuracy. In the future, symptom checkers should be trained to recognize uncommon conditions.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The popularity of eHealth services has surged significantly, underscoring the importance of ensuring their usability and accessibility for users with diverse needs, characteristics, and capabilities. These services can pose cognitive demands, especially for individuals who are unwell, fatigued, or experiencing distress. Additionally, numerous potentially vulnerable groups, including older adults, are susceptible to digital exclusion and may encounter cognitive limitations related to perception, attention, memory, and language comprehension. Regrettably, many studies overlook the preferences and needs of user groups likely to encounter challenges associated with these cognitive aspects. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aims to gain a deeper understanding of cognitive accessibility in the practical context of eHealth services. Additionally, we aimed to identify the specific challenges that vulnerable groups encounter when using eHealth services and determine key considerations for testing these services with such groups. METHODS: As a case study of eHealth services, we conducted qualitative usability testing on 2 online symptom checkers used in Finnish public primary care. A total of 13 participants from 3 distinct groups participated in the study: older adults, individuals with mild intellectual disabilities, and nonnative Finnish speakers. The primary research methods used were the thinking-aloud method, questionnaires, and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: We found that potentially vulnerable groups encountered numerous issues with the tested services, with similar problems observed across all 3 groups. Specifically, clarity and the use of terminology posed significant challenges. The services overwhelmed users with excessive information and choices, while the terminology consisted of numerous complex medical terms that were difficult to understand. When conducting tests with vulnerable groups, it is crucial to carefully plan the sessions to avoid being overly lengthy, as these users often require more time to complete tasks. Additionally, testing with vulnerable groups proved to be quite efficient, with results likely to benefit a wider audience as well. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that older adults, individuals with mild intellectual disability, and nonnative speakers may encounter cognitive challenges when using eHealth services, which can impede or slow down their use and make the services more difficult to navigate. In the worst-case scenario, these challenges may lead to errors in using the services. We recommend expanding the scope of testing to include a broader range of eHealth services with vulnerable groups, incorporating users with diverse characteristics and capabilities who are likely to encounter difficulties in cognitive accessibility.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Patients referred to rheumatologists are currently facing months of inefficient waiting time due to the increasing demand and rising workforce shortage. We piloted a pre-assessment of patients with suspected axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) combining student-led clinics and telemedicine (symptom assessment, symptom monitoring and at-home capillary self-sampling) to improve access to rheumatology care. The aim of this study was to explore (1) current challenges accessing axSpA care and (2) patients' first-hand experiences. METHODS: Embedded within a clinical trial, this study was based on qualitative interviews with patients with suspected axSpA (n = 20). Data was analysed via qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Student-led clinics were perceived as high-quality care, comparable to conventional rheumatologist-led visits. Patients expressed that their interactions with the students instilled a sense of trust. History-taking and examinations were perceived as comprehensive and meticulous. Telehealth tools were seen as empowering, offering immediate and continuous access to symptom assessment at home. Patients reported a lack of specificity of the electronic questionnaires, impeding accurate responses. Patients requested a comments area to supplement questionnaire responses. Some patients reported receiving help to complete the blood collection. CONCLUSION: Patients' access to rheumatology care is becoming increasingly burdensome. Pre-assessment including student-led clinics and telemedicine was highly accepted by patients. Patient interviews provided valuable in-depth feedback to improve the piloted patient pathway.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are often recognized late. Their diagnosis is particularly challenging due to the diversity, complexity and heterogeneity of clinical symptoms. Computer-aided diagnostic aids, often referred to as diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS), are promising tools for shortening the time to diagnosis. Despite initial positive evaluations, DDSS are not yet widely used, partly due to a lack of integration with existing clinical or practice information systems. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an insight into currently existing diagnostic support systems that function without access to electronic patient records and only require information that is easily obtainable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search identified eight articles on DDSS that can assist in the diagnosis of rare diseases with no need for access to electronic patient records or other information systems in practices and hospitals. The main advantages and disadvantages of the identified rare disease diagnostic support systems were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Symptom checkers and DDSS based on portrait photos and pain drawings already exist. The degree of maturity of these applications varies. CONCLUSION: DDSS currently still face a number of challenges, such as concerns about data protection and accuracy, and acceptance and awareness continue to be rather low. On the other hand, there is great potential for faster diagnosis, especially for rare diseases, which are easily overlooked due to their large number and the low awareness of them. The use of DDSS should therefore be carefully considered by doctors on a case-by-case basis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reproductive health conditions such as endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affect a large proportion of women and people who menstruate worldwide. Prevalence estimates for these conditions range from 5% to 40% of women of reproductive age. Long diagnostic delays, up to 12 years, are common and contribute to health complications and increased health care costs. Symptom checker apps provide users with information and tools to better understand their symptoms and thus have the potential to reduce the time to diagnosis for reproductive health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between clinicians and 3 symptom checkers (developed by Flo Health UK Limited) in assessing symptoms of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and PCOS using vignettes. We also aimed to present a robust example of vignette case creation, review, and classification in the context of predeployment testing and validation of digital health symptom checker tools. METHODS: Independent general practitioners were recruited to create clinical case vignettes of simulated users for the purpose of testing each condition symptom checker; vignettes created for each condition contained a mixture of condition-positive and condition-negative outcomes. A second panel of general practitioners then reviewed, approved, and modified (if necessary) each vignette. A third group of general practitioners reviewed each vignette case and designated a final classification. Vignettes were then entered into the symptom checkers by a fourth, different group of general practitioners. The outcomes of each symptom checker were then compared with the final classification of each vignette to produce accuracy metrics including percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 24 cases were created per condition. Overall, exact matches between the vignette general practitioner classification and the symptom checker outcome were 83% (n=20) for endometriosis, 83% (n=20) for uterine fibroids, and 88% (n=21) for PCOS. For each symptom checker, sensitivity was reported as 81.8% for endometriosis, 84.6% for uterine fibroids, and 100% for PCOS; specificity was reported as 84.6% for endometriosis, 81.8% for uterine fibroids, and 75% for PCOS; positive predictive value was reported as 81.8% for endometriosis, 84.6% for uterine fibroids, 80% for PCOS; and negative predictive value was reported as 84.6% for endometriosis, 81.8% for uterine fibroids, and 100% for PCOS. CONCLUSIONS: The single-condition symptom checkers have high levels of agreement with general practitioner classification for endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and PCOS. Given long delays in diagnosis for many reproductive health conditions, which lead to increased medical costs and potential health complications for individuals and health care providers, innovative health apps and symptom checkers hold the potential to improve care pathways.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases mostly run an undulating course and with unspecific symptoms. The initial clarification and timely initiation of treatment are challenging, which is additionally exacerbated by the lack of specialized physicians. Digital approaches, including artificial intelligence (AI), should be of assistance and enable an improved, personalized and needs-based treatment; however, the evidence is currently still very limited. This article provides a compact overview of the current state of digital rheumatology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Symptom checkers (SCs) for laypersons' self-assessment and preliminary self-diagnosis are widely used by the public. Little is known about the impact of these tools on health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care and their work. This is relevant to understanding how technological changes might affect the working world and how this is linked to work-related psychosocial demands and resources for HCPs. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to systematically explore the existing publications on the impacts of SCs on HCPs in primary care and to identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: We used the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We based our search string on the participant, concept, and context scheme and searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and CINAHL in January and June 2021. We performed a reference search in August 2021 and a manual search in November 2021. We included publications of peer-reviewed journals that focused on artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps and tools for laypersons and had primary care or nonclinical settings as a relevant context. The characteristics of these studies were described numerically. We used thematic analysis to identify core themes. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to report the study. RESULTS: Of the 2729 publications identified through initial and follow-up database searches, 43 full texts were screened for eligibility, of which 9 were included. Further 8 publications were included through manual search. Two publications were excluded after receiving feedback in the peer-review process. Fifteen publications were included in the final sample, which comprised 5 (33%) commentaries or nonresearch publications, 3 (20%) literature reviews, and 7 (47%) research publications. The earliest publications stemmed from 2015. We identified 5 themes. The theme finding prediagnosis comprised the comparison between SCs and physicians. We identified the performance of the diagnosis and the relevance of human factors as topics. In the theme layperson-technology relationship, we identified potentials for laypersons' empowerment and harm through SCs. Our analysis showed potential disruptions of the physician-patient relationship and uncontested roles of HCPs in the theme (impacts on) physician-patient relationship. In the theme impacts on HCPs' tasks, we described the reduction or increase in HCPs' workload. We identified potential transformations of HCPs' work and impacts on the health care system in the theme future role of SCs in health care. CONCLUSIONS: The scoping review approach was suitable for this new field of research. The heterogeneity of technologies and wordings was challenging. We identified research gaps in the literature regarding the impact of artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps or tools on the work of HCPs in primary care. Further empirical studies on HCPs' lived experiences are needed, as the current literature depicts expectations rather than empirical findings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of patient-facing online symptom checkers (OSCs) has expanded in recent years, but their accuracy, safety, and impact on patient behaviors and health care systems remain unclear. The lack of a standardized process of clinical evaluation has resulted in significant variation in approaches to OSC validation and evaluation. The aim of this paper is to characterize a set of congruent requirements for a standardized vignette-based clinical evaluation process of OSCs. Discrepancies in the findings of comparative studies to date suggest that different steps in OSC evaluation methodology can significantly influence outcomes. A standardized process with a clear specification for vignette-based clinical evaluation is urgently needed to guide developers and facilitate the objective comparison of OSCs. We propose 15 recommendation requirements for an OSC evaluation standard. A third-party evaluation process and protocols for prospective real-world evidence studies should also be prioritized to quality assure OSC assessment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Online AI symptom checkers and diagnostic assistants (DAs) have tremendous potential to reduce misdiagnosis and cost, while increasing the quality, convenience, and availability of healthcare, but only if they can perform with high accuracy. We introduce a novel Bayesian DA designed to improve diagnostic accuracy by addressing key weaknesses of Bayesian Network implementations for clinical diagnosis. We compare the performance of our prototype DA (MidasMed) to that of physicians and six other publicly accessible DAs (Ada, Babylon, Buoy, Isabel, Symptomate, and WebMD) using a set of 30 publicly available case vignettes, and using only sparse history (no exam findings or tests). Our results demonstrate superior performance of the MidasMed DA, with the correct diagnosis being the top ranked disorder in 93% of cases, and in the top 3 in 96% of cases.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Symptom checker apps are patient-facing decision support systems aimed at providing advice to laypersons on whether, where, and how to seek health care (disposition advice). Such advice can improve laypersons' self-assessment and ultimately improve medical outcomes. Past research has mainly focused on the accuracy of symptom checker apps' suggestions. To support decision-making, such apps need to provide not only accurate but also trustworthy advice. To date, only few studies have addressed the question of the extent to which laypersons trust symptom checker app advice or the factors that moderate their trust. Studies on general decision support systems have shown that framing automated systems (anthropomorphic or emphasizing expertise), for example, by using icons symbolizing artificial intelligence (AI), affects users' trust. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the factors influencing laypersons' trust in the advice provided by symptom checker apps. Primarily, we investigated whether designs using anthropomorphic framing or framing the app as an AI increases users' trust compared with no such framing. METHODS: Through a web-based survey, we recruited 494 US residents with no professional medical training. The participants had to first appraise the urgency of a fictitious patient description (case vignette). Subsequently, a decision aid (mock symptom checker app) provided disposition advice contradicting the participants' appraisal, and they had to subsequently reappraise the vignette. Participants were randomized into 3 groups: 2 experimental groups using visual framing (anthropomorphic, 160/494, 32.4%, vs AI, 161/494, 32.6%) and a neutral group without such framing (173/494, 35%). RESULTS: Most participants (384/494, 77.7%) followed the decision aid's advice, regardless of its urgency level. Neither anthropomorphic framing (odds ratio 1.120, 95% CI 0.664-1.897) nor framing as AI (odds ratio 0.942, 95% CI 0.565-1.570) increased behavioral or subjective trust (P=.99) compared with the no-frame condition. Even participants who were extremely certain in their own decisions (ie, 100% certain) commonly changed it in favor of the symptom checker's advice (19/34, 56%). Propensity to trust and eHealth literacy were associated with increased subjective trust in the symptom checker (propensity to trust b=0.25; eHealth literacy b=0.2), whereas sociodemographic variables showed no such link with either subjective or behavioral trust. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our expectation, neither the anthropomorphic framing nor the emphasis on AI increased trust in symptom checker advice compared with that of a neutral control condition. However, independent of the interface, most participants trusted the mock app's advice, even when they were very certain of their own assessment. Thus, the question arises as to whether laypersons use such symptom checkers as substitutes rather than as aids in their own decision-making. With trust in symptom checkers already high at baseline, the benefit of symptom checkers depends on interface designs that enable users to adequately calibrate their trust levels during usage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00028561; https://tinyurl.com/rv4utcfb (retrospectively registered).

RESUMEN

Background: Patients are increasingly turning to the Internet for health information. Numerous online symptom checkers and digital triage tools are currently available to the general public in an effort to meet this need, simultaneously acting as a demand management strategy to aid the overburdened health care system. The implementation of these services requires an evidence-based approach, warranting a review of the available literature on this rapidly evolving topic. Objective: This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art and identify research gaps through an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the presently available literature. Methods: A systematic search strategy was formed and applied to six databases: Cochrane library, NICE, DARE, NIHR, Pubmed, and Web of Science. Data extraction was performed by two researchers according to a pre-established data charting methodology allowing for a thematic analysis of the results. Results: A total of 10,250 articles were identified, and 28 publications were found eligible for inclusion. Users of these tools are often younger, female, more highly educated and technologically literate, potentially impacting digital divide and health equity. Triage algorithms remain risk-averse, which causes challenges for their accuracy. Recent evolutions in algorithms have varying degrees of success. Results on impact are highly variable, with potential effects on demand, accessibility of care, health literacy and syndromic surveillance. Both patients and healthcare providers are generally positive about the technology and seem amenable to the advice given, but there are still improvements to be made toward a more patient-centered approach. The significant heterogeneity across studies and triage systems remains the primary challenge for the field, limiting transferability of findings. Conclusion: Current evidence included in this review is characterized by significant variability in study design and outcomes, highlighting the significant challenges for future research.An evolution toward more homogeneous methodologies, studies tailored to the intended setting, regulation and standardization of evaluations, and a patient-centered approach could benefit the field.

RESUMEN

Online symptom checkers (SCs) are eHealth solutions that offer healthcare organizations the possibility to empower their patients to independently assess their symptoms. The successful implementation of eHealth solutions, such as SCs, requires a supportive organizational culture and leadership. However, there is limited knowledge about the factors associated with leaders' support for the use of SCs. The aim of the study was to identify the factors associated to primary care leaders' support for SCs in triage and their experiences of the benefits and challenges related to the use of SCs. An online survey was used to collect data from 84 Finnish primary care leaders. The data were analyzed using statistical analysis methods and content analysis. Vision clarity, perceiving efficiency improvements, and considering the service to be beneficial for patients were associated with leaders' support for the service (ß ranging from 0.41 to 0.44, p < 0.001). Leaders' support for the service was also associated with how well the leaders provided information about the service to their subordinates (ß =0.22, p < 0.048). SCs present slightly more challenges than benefits regarding health professionals' work. The developers of SCs should focus more on features that decrease health professionals' workload as well as how the solution can benefit patients.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Young adults often browse the internet for self-triage and diagnosis. More sophisticated digital platforms such as symptom checkers have recently become pervasive; however, little is known about their use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand young adults' (18-34 years old) perspectives on the use of the Google search engine versus a symptom checker, as well as to identify the barriers and enablers for using a symptom checker for self-triage and self-diagnosis. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive case study research design was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 young adults enrolled in a university in Ontario, Canada. All participants were given a clinical vignette and were asked to use a symptom checker (WebMD Symptom Checker or Babylon Health) while thinking out loud, and were asked questions regarding their experience. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and imported into the NVivo software program. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Using the Google search engine was perceived to be faster and more customizable (ie, ability to enter symptoms freely in the search engine) than a symptom checker; however, a symptom checker was perceived to be useful for a more personalized assessment. After having used a symptom checker, most of the participants believed that the platform needed improvement in the areas of accuracy, security and privacy, and medical jargon used. Given these limitations, most participants believed that symptom checkers could be more useful for self-triage than for self-diagnosis. Interestingly, more than half of the participants were not aware of symptom checkers prior to this study and most believed that this lack of awareness about the existence of symptom checkers hindered their use. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness related to the existence of symptom checkers and their integration into the health care system are required to maximize benefits related to these platforms. Addressing the barriers identified in this study is likely to increase the acceptance and use of symptom checkers by young adults.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A large number of web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers and chatbots have been developed; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that their conclusions are highly variable. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the accuracy of COVID-19 symptom checkers in a statistically rigorous manner. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracies of web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers. METHODS: We identified 10 web-based COVID-19 symptom checkers, all of which were included in the study. We evaluated the COVID-19 symptom checkers by assessing 50 COVID-19 case reports alongside 410 non-COVID-19 control cases. A bootstrapping method was used to counter the unbalanced sample sizes and obtain confidence intervals (CIs). Results are reported as sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). RESULTS: The classification task between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative for "high risk" cases among the 460 test cases yielded (sorted by F1 score): Symptoma (F1=0.92, MCC=0.85), Infermedica (F1=0.80, MCC=0.61), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (F1=0.71, MCC=0.30), Babylon (F1=0.70, MCC=0.29), Cleveland Clinic (F1=0.40, MCC=0.07), Providence (F1=0.40, MCC=0.05), Apple (F1=0.29, MCC=-0.10), Docyet (F1=0.27, MCC=0.29), Ada (F1=0.24, MCC=0.27) and Your.MD (F1=0.24, MCC=0.27). For "high risk" and "medium risk" combined the performance was: Symptoma (F1=0.91, MCC=0.83) Infermedica (F1=0.80, MCC=0.61), Cleveland Clinic (F1=0.76, MCC=0.47), Providence (F1=0.75, MCC=0.45), Your.MD (F1=0.72, MCC=0.33), CDC (F1=0.71, MCC=0.30), Babylon (F1=0.70, MCC=0.29), Apple (F1=0.70, MCC=0.25), Ada (F1=0.42, MCC=0.03), and Docyet (F1=0.27, MCC=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the number of correctly assessed COVID-19 and control cases varies considerably between symptom checkers, with different symptom checkers showing different strengths with respect to sensitivity and specificity. A good balance between sensitivity and specificity was only achieved by two symptom checkers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Online symptom checkers and assessment services are used by patients seeking guidance on health problems. In this study, the goal was to identify health professionals' experiences of the benefits and challenges of new symptom checkers providing triage advice. Data was collected through an online survey of 61 health professionals who were target users of the online symptom checkers implemented in six public health organizations and one private occupational health clinic. Most of the health professionals supported the use of online symptom checkers and found services useful to patients because they provided patients quick contact with health professionals and referral to care or self-management instructions regardless of time and place. Health professionals were less confident that most of the patients were capable and willing to use the symptom checkers. Health professionals were satisfied with symptom checkers providing them with more useful information before meeting patients. By contrast, symptom checkers were seen as disrupting clinical work and time-consuming. The results imply that the clinical work processes should be redesigned to guide patients in an efficient manner, avoid work overlap, and provide work motivation for professionals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Outcomes of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have significantly improved over the last three decades, mainly due to therapeutic innovations, more timely treatment, and a recognition of the need to monitor response to treatment and to titrate treatments accordingly. Diagnostic delay remains a major challenge for all stakeholders. The combination of electronic health (eHealth) and serologic and genetic markers holds great promise to improve the current management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases by speeding up access to appropriate care. The Joint Pain Assessment Scoring Tool (JPAST) project, funded by the European Union (EU) European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Health program, is a unique European project aiming to enable and accelerate personalized precision medicine for early treatment in rheumatology, ultimately also enabling prevention. The aim of the project is to facilitate these goals while at the same time, reducing cost for society and patients.

Asunto(s)