ArticleBMJ open2022
Effects and utility of an online forward triage tool during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a mixed method study and patient perspectives, Switzerland.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Did the pandemic influence telehealth use among Swiss emergency department patients? A sequential explanatory study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A Utility Framework for COVID-19 Online Forward Triage Tools: A Swiss Telehealth Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effects (quantitatively) and the utility (qualitatively) of a COVID-19 online forward triage tool (OFTT) in a pandemic context.
designA mixed method sequential explanatory study was employed. Quantitative data of all OFTT users, between 2 March 2020 and 12 May 2020, were collected. Second, qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews (n=19) to explain the quantitative findings, explore tool utility, user experience and elicit recommendations.
settingThe working group e-emergency medicine at the emergency department developed an OFTT, which was made available online.
participantsParticipants included all users above the age of 18 that used the OFTT between 2 March 2020 and 12 May 2020.
interventionAn OFTT that displayed the current test recommendations of the Federal Office of Public Health on whether someone needed testing for COVID-19 or not. No diagnosis was provided.
resultsIn the study period, 6272 users consulted our OFTT; 40.2% (1626/4049) would have contacted a healthcare provider had the tool not existed. 560 participants consented to a follow-up survey and provided a valid email address. 31.4% (176/560) participants returned a complete follow-up questionnaire. 84.7% (149/176) followed the recommendations given. 41.5% (73/176) reported that their fear was allayed after using the tool. Qualitatively, seven overarching themes emerged namely (1) accessibility of tool, (2) user-friendliness of tool, (3) utility of tool as an information source, (4) utility of tool in allaying fear and anxiety, (5) utility of tool in medical decision-making (6) utility of tool in reducing the potential for onward transmissions and (7) utility of tool in reducing health system burden.
conclusionOur findings demonstrated that a COVID-19 OFTT does not only reduce the health system burden but can also serve as an information source, reduce anxiety and fear, reduce potential for cross infections and facilitate medical decision-making.
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.