ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Health Care Professionals' Experiences of Web-Based Symptom Checkers for Triage: Cross-sectional Survey Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhancing digital readiness and capability in healthcare: a systematic review of interventions, barriers, and facilitators.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Factors affecting nurses' acceptance of a digital triage platform in primary health care in Sweden: an extended UTAUT analysis.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Patient safety practices in an innovative digital landscape: an interview study on triage in Swedish digital primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Article
- The Doctors, Their Patients, and the Symptom Checker App: Qualitative Interview Study With General Practitioners in Germany.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Triage Accuracy and the Safety of User-Initiated Symptom Assessment With an Electronic Symptom Checker in a Real-Life Setting: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Digital Outreach Strategies for Collecting Smoking Data: Pragmatic Randomized Trial.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance, Triage Safety, and Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System Within a University Hospital Emergency Department: Algorithm Performance and Usability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- The Role of Human and Organizational Factors in the Pursuit of One Digital Health.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Underestimated Factors Regarding the Use of Technology in Daily Practice of Long-Term Care: Qualitative Study Among Health Care Professionals.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
- A scoping review on the use and usefulness of online symptom checkers and triage systems: How to proceed?Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWeb-based symptom checkers are promising tools that provide help to patients seeking guidance on health problems. Many health organizations have started using them to enhance triage. Patients use the symptom checker to report their symptoms online and submit the report to the health care center through the system. Health care professionals (registered nurse, practical nurse, general physician, physiotherapist, etc) receive patient inquiries with urgency rating, decide on actions to be taken, and communicate these to the patients. The success of the adoption, however, depends on whether the tools can efficiently support health care professionals' workflow and achieve their support.
objectiveThis study explores the factors influencing health care professionals' support for a web-based symptom checker for triage.
methodsData were collected through a web-based survey of 639 health care professionals using either of the two most used web-based symptom checkers in the Finnish public primary care. Linear regression models were fitted to study the associations between the study variables and health care professionals' support for the symptom checkers. In addition, the health care professionals' comments collected via survey were qualitatively analyzed to elicit additional insights about the benefits and challenges of the clinical use of symptom checkers.
resultsResults show that the perceived beneficial influence of the symptom checkers on health care professionals' work and the perceived usability of the tools were positively associated with professionals' support. The perceived benefits to patients and organizational support for use were positively associated, and threat to professionals' autonomy was negatively associated with health care professionals' support. These associations were, however, not independent of other factors included in the models. The influences on professionals' work were both positive and negative; the tools streamlined work by providing preliminary information on patients and reduced the number of phone calls, but they also created extra work as the professionals needed to call patients and ask clarifying questions. Managing time between the use of symptom checkers and other tasks was also challenging. Meanwhile, according to health care professionals' experience, the symptom checkers benefited patients as they received help quickly with a lower threshold for care.
conclusionsThe efficient use of symptom checkers for triage requires usable solutions that support health care professionals' work. High-quality information about the patients' conditions and an efficient way of communicating with patients are needed. Using a new eHealth tool also requires that health organizations and teams reorganize their workflows and work distributions to support clinical processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.