Evaluating the use of red flags by online symptom checkers.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shailen Sutaria, Delanjathan Devakumar, Poppy Mallinson, Sanjay Kinra, Tamer T Malak, Andras Meczner
{"title":"Evaluating the use of red flags by online symptom checkers.","authors":"Shailen Sutaria, Delanjathan Devakumar, Poppy Mallinson, Sanjay Kinra, Tamer T Malak, Andras Meczner","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-13353-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Online Symptom Checkers (OSCs) are digital health tools providing triage, diagnostic, and self-care advice based on user reported symptoms. Amidst global trends of increasing demand and workforce shortages, OSCs have the potential to alleviate primary care workload. However, their ability to seek red flag symptoms, a critical marker of a safe consultation in primary care, remains unexplored. Using clinical vignettes, this study evaluates OSCs' performance in seeking red flag symptoms compared to Primary Care Physicians (PCPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four OSCs (Ada, Babylon, Symptomate, Healthily) were evaluated using 51 clinical vignettes. Two standard setters used guidelines to determine which vignettes required emergency triage and identified the relevant red flags symptoms for the remaining vignettes. Two laypersons entered data from vignettes into OSCs and outputs were collected following a standardised form. The same vignettes were independently assessed by PCPs to compare triage accuracy and red flag identification. Summary statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Wilson Score intervals, and Fisher's exact test was used to compare performance between OSCs and PCPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 51 clinical vignettes, standard setters determined 14 to require emergency triage and the remaining 37 vignettes suitable for primary care triage. Of the primary care triaged vignettes, standard setters identified a total of 77 relevant red flag symptoms to be sought. Of the 14 emergency vignettes, PCPs correctly triaged 85.7% (95% CI: 74.3-92.6%) of cases compared to OSCs 76.9% (95% CI: 59.3-87.9%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.299). Specificity, the proportion of correctly triaged primary care vignettes, PCPs performed significantly better compared to OSCs, 91.9% (95%CI 78.9-97.0%) vs. 83.3% (95%CI 68.1-91.9%), p = 0.024.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OSCs demonstrated comparable ability to appropriately triage clinical vignettes requiring emergency triage as PCPs, however, were less specific, triaging more primary care vignettes as emergency. OSCs do not seek the majority of red flags. This raises concerns about their safety and effectiveness in primary care. OSCs developers should focus on improving OSCs' red flag coverage to ensure safe integration into primary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1263"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486864/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13353-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Online Symptom Checkers (OSCs) are digital health tools providing triage, diagnostic, and self-care advice based on user reported symptoms. Amidst global trends of increasing demand and workforce shortages, OSCs have the potential to alleviate primary care workload. However, their ability to seek red flag symptoms, a critical marker of a safe consultation in primary care, remains unexplored. Using clinical vignettes, this study evaluates OSCs' performance in seeking red flag symptoms compared to Primary Care Physicians (PCPs).

Methods: Four OSCs (Ada, Babylon, Symptomate, Healthily) were evaluated using 51 clinical vignettes. Two standard setters used guidelines to determine which vignettes required emergency triage and identified the relevant red flags symptoms for the remaining vignettes. Two laypersons entered data from vignettes into OSCs and outputs were collected following a standardised form. The same vignettes were independently assessed by PCPs to compare triage accuracy and red flag identification. Summary statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Wilson Score intervals, and Fisher's exact test was used to compare performance between OSCs and PCPs.

Results: Of the 51 clinical vignettes, standard setters determined 14 to require emergency triage and the remaining 37 vignettes suitable for primary care triage. Of the primary care triaged vignettes, standard setters identified a total of 77 relevant red flag symptoms to be sought. Of the 14 emergency vignettes, PCPs correctly triaged 85.7% (95% CI: 74.3-92.6%) of cases compared to OSCs 76.9% (95% CI: 59.3-87.9%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.299). Specificity, the proportion of correctly triaged primary care vignettes, PCPs performed significantly better compared to OSCs, 91.9% (95%CI 78.9-97.0%) vs. 83.3% (95%CI 68.1-91.9%), p = 0.024.

Conclusions: OSCs demonstrated comparable ability to appropriately triage clinical vignettes requiring emergency triage as PCPs, however, were less specific, triaging more primary care vignettes as emergency. OSCs do not seek the majority of red flags. This raises concerns about their safety and effectiveness in primary care. OSCs developers should focus on improving OSCs' red flag coverage to ensure safe integration into primary care settings.

评估在线症状检查器对危险信号的使用情况。
背景:在线症状检查器(OSCs)是基于用户报告的症状提供分类、诊断和自我护理建议的数字健康工具。在需求增加和劳动力短缺的全球趋势下,osc有可能减轻初级保健工作量。然而,他们寻找危险信号症状的能力(这是初级保健安全咨询的关键标志)仍未得到探索。本研究使用临床小片段,比较初级保健医生(pcp)在寻找红旗症状方面的表现,评估osc的表现。方法:采用51份临床调查问卷对Ada、Babylon、Symptomate、healthy 4种OSCs进行评价。两个标准制定者使用指南来确定哪些小插曲需要紧急分类,并确定其余小插曲的相关危险信号症状。两名外行人员将小样本中的数据输入osc,并根据标准化表格收集输出。同样的小插曲由pcp独立评估,以比较分诊准确性和危险信号识别。使用Wilson评分区间计算汇总统计量和95%置信区间,并使用Fisher精确检验比较OSCs和pcp之间的性能。结果:在51个临床病例中,标准制定者确定14个病例需要紧急分诊,其余37个病例适合初级保健分诊。在初级保健分类的小插曲中,标准制定者确定了总共77个需要寻求的相关红旗症状。在14个紧急检查中,pcp正确分类了85.7% (95% CI: 74.3-92.6%)的病例,而osc正确分类了76.9% (95% CI: 59.3-87.9%),差异无统计学意义(p = 0.299)。特异性,正确分类的初级保健患者的比例,pcp的表现明显优于osc,分别为91.9% (95%CI 78.9-97.0%)和83.3% (95%CI 68.1-91.9%), p = 0.024。结论:osc在将需要紧急分诊的临床病例作为pcp进行适当分诊方面表现出相当的能力,然而,它们的特异性较低,将更多的初级保健病例作为紧急分诊。osc不寻求大多数危险信号。这引起了对它们在初级保健中的安全性和有效性的关注。osc的开发人员应该把重点放在改善osc的危险信号覆盖上,以确保安全地融入初级保健环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信