Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33339468›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2021

'You should see a doctor', said the robot: Reflections on a digital diagnostic device in a pandemic age.

Christoffer Bjerre Haase, Margaret Bearman, John Brodersen, Klaus Hoeyer, Torsten Risor

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Christoffer Bjerre HaaseDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3895-518X
Margaret BearmanCentre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Australia.
John BrodersenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus HoeyerDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2780-4784
Torsten RisorDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn three days at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services developed a digital diagnostic device. The purpose was to assess and triage potential COVID-19 symptoms and to reduce the number of calls to public health-care helplines. The device was used almost 150,000 times in a few weeks and was described by politicians and administrators as a solution and success. However, high usage cannot serve as the sole criterion of success. What might be adequate criteria? And should digital triage for citizens by default be considered low risk?

methodsThis paper reflects on the uncertain aspects of the performance, risks and issues of accountability pertaining to the digital diagnostic device in order to draw lessons for future improvements. The analysis is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the EU and US regulations of medical devices and the taxonomy of uncertainty in health care by Han et al.

resultsLessons for future digital devices are (a) the need for clear criteria of success, (b) the importance of awareness of other severe diseases when triaging, (c) the priority of designing the device to collect data for evaluation and (d) clear allocation of responsibilities.

conclusionsA device meant to substitute triage for citizens according to its own criteria of success should not by default be considered as low risk. In a pandemic age dependent on digitalisation, it is therefore important not to abandon the ethos of EBM, but instead to prepare the ground for new ways of building evidence of effect.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyEmergency Medical ServicesPandemicsCOVID-19DenmarkEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPhysiciansRoboticsTriageacute primary health careChatbotCOVID-19diagnosticsdigital diagnostic devicedigitalisationevidence-based medicineregulationssymptom checkeruncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33339468
PMCPMC7859581
OpenAlexW3116949344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.