Impact of a Symptom Checker App on Patient-Physician Interaction Among Self-Referred Walk-In Patients in the Emergency Department: Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Controlled Trial DOI Creative Commons
Malte L Schmieding, Marvin Kopka, Myrto Bolanaki

et al.

Journal of Medical Internet Research, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 27, P. e64028 - e64028

Published: April 2, 2025

Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are layperson-facing tools that advise on whether and where to seek care, or possible diagnoses. Previous research has primarily focused evaluating the accuracy, safety, usability of their recommendations. However, studies examining SCAs' impact clinical including patient-physician interaction satisfaction with remain scarce. This study aims evaluate effects an SCA in acute care settings. Additionally, we examined its influence patients' anxiety trust treating physician. parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 emergency departments academic medical center practice Berlin, Germany. Low-acuity patients seeking these sites were randomly assigned either self-assess health complaints using a widely available commercial (Ada Health) before first encounter physician receive usual care. The primary endpoint interaction, measured by Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ). secondary outcomes levels, physicians' interaction. We used linear mixed models assess statistical significance outcomes. Exploratory descriptive analyses perceptions SCA's utility frequency questioning physician's authority. Between April 11, 2022, January 25, 2023, approached 665 patients. A total 363 included intention-to-treat analysis outcome (intervention: n=173, control: n=190). PSQ scores intervention group similar those control (mean 78.5, SD 20.0 vs mean 80.8, 19.6; estimated difference -2.4, 95% CI -6.3 1.1, P=.24). Secondary outcomes, patient anxiety, showed no significant differences (all P>.05). Patients more likely report had beneficial (66/164, 40.2%) rather than detrimental (3/164, 1.8%) most reporting effect (95/164, 57.9%). Similar patterns observed regarding perceived In both groups, physicians rarely reported authority been questioned 2/188, 1.1%; 4/184, 2.2%). While often found helpful unhelpful, majority indicated it neither nor unhelpful for encounter. evidence improved setting. By contrast, predominantly described as beneficial. Our did not identify negative use commonly literature, such increased diminished professionals. German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00028598; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00028598/entails. RR2-10.1186/s13063-022-06688-w.

Language: Английский

Augmenting Community Nursing Practice With Generative AI: A Formative Study of Diagnostic Synergies Using Simulation-Based Clinical Cases DOI Creative Commons
Odelyah Saad, Mor Saban,

Erika Kerner

et al.

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 16

Published: March 1, 2025

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making of experienced community nurses versus state-of-the-art generative AI (GenAI) systems for simulated patient case scenarios. Methods: In months 5 to 6/2024, 114 Israeli completed a questionnaire including 4 medical studies. Responses were also collected from 3 GenAI models (ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.0, Gemini 1.5), analyzed both without word limits with 10-word constraint. scored on accuracy, speed, comprehensiveness. Results: Nurses higher average compared shortened responses. responses faster but more verbose, contained unnecessary information. (full version) achieved highest among models. Conclusions: While shows potential support aspects nursing practice, human clinicians currently exhibit advantages in holistic reasoning abilities, skill requiring experience, contextual knowledge, ability bring concise practical Further research is needed before can adequately substitute expertise.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
Impact of a Symptom Checker App on Patient-Physician Interaction Among Self-Referred Walk-In Patients in the Emergency Department: Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Controlled Trial DOI Creative Commons
Malte L Schmieding, Marvin Kopka, Myrto Bolanaki

et al.

Journal of Medical Internet Research, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 27, P. e64028 - e64028

Published: April 2, 2025

Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are layperson-facing tools that advise on whether and where to seek care, or possible diagnoses. Previous research has primarily focused evaluating the accuracy, safety, usability of their recommendations. However, studies examining SCAs' impact clinical including patient-physician interaction satisfaction with remain scarce. This study aims evaluate effects an SCA in acute care settings. Additionally, we examined its influence patients' anxiety trust treating physician. parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 emergency departments academic medical center practice Berlin, Germany. Low-acuity patients seeking these sites were randomly assigned either self-assess health complaints using a widely available commercial (Ada Health) before first encounter physician receive usual care. The primary endpoint interaction, measured by Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ). secondary outcomes levels, physicians' interaction. We used linear mixed models assess statistical significance outcomes. Exploratory descriptive analyses perceptions SCA's utility frequency questioning physician's authority. Between April 11, 2022, January 25, 2023, approached 665 patients. A total 363 included intention-to-treat analysis outcome (intervention: n=173, control: n=190). PSQ scores intervention group similar those control (mean 78.5, SD 20.0 vs mean 80.8, 19.6; estimated difference -2.4, 95% CI -6.3 1.1, P=.24). Secondary outcomes, patient anxiety, showed no significant differences (all P>.05). Patients more likely report had beneficial (66/164, 40.2%) rather than detrimental (3/164, 1.8%) most reporting effect (95/164, 57.9%). Similar patterns observed regarding perceived In both groups, physicians rarely reported authority been questioned 2/188, 1.1%; 4/184, 2.2%). While often found helpful unhelpful, majority indicated it neither nor unhelpful for encounter. evidence improved setting. By contrast, predominantly described as beneficial. Our did not identify negative use commonly literature, such increased diminished professionals. German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00028598; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00028598/entails. RR2-10.1186/s13063-022-06688-w.

Language: Английский

Citations

0