Usability and Acceptability of a Symptom Checker App by Patients Seeking Urgent Care.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-28 DOI:10.1055/a-2962-9261
Hamish S F Fraser, Ian Bacher, Ishaani Khatri, Sasha Raman, Drew Nagle, Daven Crossland, Tracy Madsen, Ross Hilliard
{"title":"Usability and Acceptability of a Symptom Checker App by Patients Seeking Urgent Care.","authors":"Hamish S F Fraser, Ian Bacher, Ishaani Khatri, Sasha Raman, Drew Nagle, Daven Crossland, Tracy Madsen, Ross Hilliard","doi":"10.1055/a-2962-9261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are common in medical care and can significantly affect patient outcomes. Symptom checker apps promise to help patients understand their symptoms, possible diagnoses, and actions to take, but lack evidence on accuracy, safety, and usability.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the usability and acceptability of the Ada symptom checker app for patients in urgent primary care (PC) settings, and extended it with more diverse data from an earlier emergency department (ED) study.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>METHODS: Patients entered their symptoms into Ada before assessment by a physician. Both the PC study and the ED study compared Ada's diagnoses to the treating physicians' diagnoses. Usability and acceptability were evaluated using a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Factors influencing usability were analyzed using linear and logistic regression. Quality of clinical history was also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>RESULTS: The study included 214 urgent PC patients and 40 ED patients. Usability scores were generally high; 73% of PC patients agreed or strongly agreed with the seven TAM usability questions, and ED patients scored higher at 84% (with more direct assistance). Predictors of lower usability scores were age over 50 and limited technology experience. Sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and educational level were not significant. In the PC study, Ada's top three diagnoses matched at least one treating physician diagnosis in 109/172 (63.3%) of cases with clear final diagnoses (sensitivity); three independent physicians had median matching of 124/172 (72.1%) on Ada summaries. Clinical history was rated complete in two-thirds of cases.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>CONCLUSION: The usability and acceptance of Ada were rated highly except by people older than 50 or with lower technology experience. Extensive research is needed to validate the usability of different diagnostic tools, including symptom checkers and large language models (used widely for symptom checking), across diverse populations, and their effects on patient decision-making and care-seeking behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":"863-872"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13645476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2962-9261","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are common in medical care and can significantly affect patient outcomes. Symptom checker apps promise to help patients understand their symptoms, possible diagnoses, and actions to take, but lack evidence on accuracy, safety, and usability.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the usability and acceptability of the Ada symptom checker app for patients in urgent primary care (PC) settings, and extended it with more diverse data from an earlier emergency department (ED) study.

Abstract: METHODS: Patients entered their symptoms into Ada before assessment by a physician. Both the PC study and the ED study compared Ada's diagnoses to the treating physicians' diagnoses. Usability and acceptability were evaluated using a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Factors influencing usability were analyzed using linear and logistic regression. Quality of clinical history was also evaluated.

Abstract: RESULTS: The study included 214 urgent PC patients and 40 ED patients. Usability scores were generally high; 73% of PC patients agreed or strongly agreed with the seven TAM usability questions, and ED patients scored higher at 84% (with more direct assistance). Predictors of lower usability scores were age over 50 and limited technology experience. Sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and educational level were not significant. In the PC study, Ada's top three diagnoses matched at least one treating physician diagnosis in 109/172 (63.3%) of cases with clear final diagnoses (sensitivity); three independent physicians had median matching of 124/172 (72.1%) on Ada summaries. Clinical history was rated complete in two-thirds of cases.

Abstract: CONCLUSION: The usability and acceptance of Ada were rated highly except by people older than 50 or with lower technology experience. Extensive research is needed to validate the usability of different diagnostic tools, including symptom checkers and large language models (used widely for symptom checking), across diverse populations, and their effects on patient decision-making and care-seeking behavior.

寻求紧急护理的患者的症状检查应用程序的可用性和可接受性。
简介:诊断错误在医疗保健中很常见,并能显著影响患者的预后。症状检查应用程序承诺帮助患者了解他们的症状、可能的诊断和采取的措施,但在准确性、安全性和可用性方面缺乏证据。方法:本研究评估了Ada症状检查应用程序在紧急初级保健(PC)设置患者中的可用性和可接受性,并从早期急诊科(ED)研究中获得更多样化的数据进行扩展。患者在医生评估前将症状输入Ada。PC研究和ED研究都将Ada的诊断与主治医生的诊断进行了比较。使用基于技术接受模型(TAM)的问卷来评估可用性和可接受性。采用线性和逻辑回归分析影响可用性的因素。临床病史的质量也进行了评估。结果:本研究纳入214例急诊初级保健患者和40例急症患者。可用性得分普遍较高,73%的初级保健患者同意或强烈同意7个TAM可用性问题,急诊科患者得分更高,为84%(有更多的直接帮助)。可用性得分较低的预测因素是年龄超过50岁和技术经验有限。性别、种族、民族、社会经济地位和教育水平不显著。在初级保健研究中,Ada的前3位诊断有109/172(63.3%)与至少1位治疗医生的诊断相匹配,在最终诊断明确的病例中(敏感性),3位独立医生与Ada总结的中位数匹配为124/172(72.1%)。三分之二的病例的临床病史被认为是完整的。结论:除了年龄在50岁以上或技术经验较低的人群外,Ada的可用性和接受度评价较高。需要广泛的研究来验证不同人群中不同诊断工具的可用性,包括SCs和大型语言模型(广泛用于症状检查),以及它们对患者决策和求医行为的影响。
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
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
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
小红书