Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32540836›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2020

Patients' Utilization and Perception of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Symptom Assessment and Advice Technology in a British Primary Care Waiting Room: Exploratory Pilot Study.

Stephen Miller, Stephen Gilbert, Vishaal Virani, Paul Wicks

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephen MillerNHS Paxton Green Group Practice, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7359-8603
Stephen GilbertAda Health GmbH, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1997-1689
Vishaal ViraniAda Health GmbH, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-4593
Paul WicksAda Health GmbH, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2293-9284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen someone needs to know whether and when to seek medical attention, there are a range of options to consider. Each will have consequences for the individual (primarily considering trust, convenience, usefulness, and opportunity costs) and for the wider health system (affecting clinical throughput, cost, and system efficiency). Digital symptom assessment technologies that leverage artificial intelligence may help patients navigate to the right type of care with the correct degree of urgency. However, a recent review highlighted a gap in the literature on the real-world usability of these technologies.

objectiveWe sought to explore the usability, acceptability, and utility of one such symptom assessment technology, Ada, in a primary care setting.

methodsPatients with a new complaint attending a primary care clinic in South London were invited to use a custom version of the Ada symptom assessment mobile app. This exploratory pilot study was conducted between November 2017 and January 2018 in a practice with 20,000 registered patients. Participants were asked to complete an Ada self-assessment about their presenting complaint on a study smartphone, with assistance provided if required. Perceptions on the app and its utility were collected through a self-completed study questionnaire following completion of the Ada self-assessment.

resultsOver a 3-month period, 523 patients participated. Most were female (n=325, 62.1%), mean age 39.79 years (SD 17.7 years), with a larger proportion (413/506, 81.6%) of working-age individuals (aged 15-64) than the general population (66.0%). Participants rated Ada's ease of use highly, with most (511/522, 97.8%) reporting it was very or quite easy. Most would use Ada again (443/503, 88.1%) and agreed they would recommend it to a friend or relative (444/520, 85.3%). We identified a number of age-related trends among respondents, with a directional trend for more young respondents to report Ada had provided helpful advice (50/54, 93%, 18-24-year olds reported helpful) than older respondents (19/32, 59%, adults aged 70+ reported helpful). We found no sex differences on any of the usability questions fielded. While most respondents reported that using the symptom checker would not have made a difference in their care-seeking behavior (425/494, 86.0%), a sizable minority (63/494, 12.8%) reported they would have used lower-intensity care such as self-care, pharmacy, or delaying their appointment. The proportion was higher for patients aged 18-24 (11/50, 22%) than aged 70+ (0/28, 0%).

conclusionsIn this exploratory pilot study, the digital symptom checker was rated as highly usable and acceptable by patients in a primary care setting. Further research is needed to confirm whether the app might appropriately direct patients to timely care, and understand how this might save resources for the health system. More work is also needed to ensure the benefits accrue equally to older age groups.

Indexed as

acceptabilityappeHealthgeneral practicehealth care appshuman-centered designinnovativeprimary caresymptom checkerusabilityutility

Identifiers

PMID32540836
PMCPMC7382011
OpenAlexW3035307628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.