Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34661544›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Human, Organization, and Technology Perspective on Patients' Experiences of a Chat-Based and Automated Medical History-Taking Service in Primary Health Care: Interview Study Among Primary Care Patients.

Evalill Nilsson, Annette Sverker, Preben Bendtsen, Ann Catrine Eldh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Evalill Nilsson *eHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4497-8313
Annette Sverker *Department of Activity and Health and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1188-4273
Preben Bendtsen *Department of Medical Specialists in Motala and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5913-2903
Ann Catrine Eldh *Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7737-169X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of e-visits in health care is progressing rapidly worldwide. To date, studies on the advantages and disadvantages of e-consultations in the form of chat services for all inquiries in primary care have focused on the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs) rather than those of end users (patients).

objectiveThis study aims to explore patients' experiences using a chat-based and automated medical history-taking service in regular, tax-based, not-for-profit primary care in Sweden.

methodsOverall, 25 individual interviews were conducted with patients in the catchment areas of 5 primary care centers (PCCs) in Sweden that tested a chat-based and automated medical history-taking service for all types of patient inquiries. The semistructured interviews were transcribed verbatim before content analysis using inductive and deductive strategies, the latter including an unconstrained matrix of human, organization, and technology perspectives.

resultsThe service provided an easily managed way for patients to make written contact with HCPs, which was considered beneficial for some patients and issues but less suitable for others (acute or more complex cases). The automated medical history-taking service was perceived as having potential but still derived from what HCPs need to know and how they address and communicate health and health care issues. Technical skills were not considered as necessary for a mobile phone chat as for handling a computer; however, patients still expressed concern for people with less digital literacy. The opportunity to take one's time and reflect on one's situation before answering questions from the HCPs was found to reduce stress and prevent errors, and patients speculated that it might be the same for the HCPs on the other end of the system. Patients appreciated the ability to have a conversation from almost anywhere, even from places not suitable for telephone calls. The asynchronicity of the chat service allowed the patients to take more control of the conversation and initiate a chat at any time at their own convenience; however, it could also lead to lengthy conversations where a single issue in the worst cases could take days to close. The opportunity to upload photographs made some visits to the PCC redundant, which would otherwise have been necessary if the ordinary telephone service had been used, saving patients both time and money.

conclusionsPatients generally had a positive attitude toward e-visits in primary care and were generally pleased with the prospects of the digital tool tested, somewhat more with the actual chat than with the automated history-taking system preceding the chat. Although patients expect their PCC to offer a range of different means of communication, the human, organization, and technology analysis revealed a need for more extensive (end) user experience design in the further development of the chat service.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPrimary Health CareDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchTechnologydigital encounterdigital healthcaree-consultatione-healthinterviewpatient perspectiveprimary healthcarequalitative studytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34661544
PMCPMC8561406

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.