ArticleJMIR formative research2022
The Triage Capability of Laypersons: Retrospective Exploratory Analysis.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Triage and Diagnostic Accuracy of Online Symptom Checkers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating digital triage symptom checker with historical triage-related adverse events.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Concordance between an artificial intelligence self-triage programme and physical triage.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2026Observational
- Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT model versions for giving care-seeking advice.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self-triage decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Technology-supported self-triage decision making.npj health systems · 2025Article
- The RepVig framework for designing use-case specific representative vignettes and evaluating triage accuracy of laypeople and symptom assessment applications.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A comparison of self-triage tools to nurse driven triage in the emergency department.PloS one · 2024Article
- Statistical refinement of patient-centered case vignettes for digital health research.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- User-Initiated Symptom Assessment With an Electronic Symptom Checker: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Characteristics of Users and Nonusers of Symptom Checkers in Germany: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Protection Motivation Perspective Regarding the Use of COVID-19 Mobile Tracing Apps Among Public Users: Empirical Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- How Virtual Triage Can Improve Patient Experience and Satisfaction: A Narrative Review and Look Forward.Telemedicine reports · 2023Review
- Determinants of Laypersons' Trust in Medical Decision Aids: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR human factors · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough medical decision-making may be thought of as a task involving health professionals, many decisions, including critical health-related decisions are made by laypersons alone. Specifically, as the first step to most care episodes, it is the patient who determines whether and where to seek health care (triage). Overcautious self-assessments (ie, overtriaging) may lead to overutilization of health care facilities and overcrowded emergency departments, whereas imprudent decisions (ie, undertriaging) constitute a risk to the patient's health. Recently, patient-facing decision support systems, commonly known as symptom checkers, have been developed to assist laypersons in these decisions.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing laypersons' ability to self-triage and their risk averseness in self-triage decisions.
methodsWe analyzed publicly available data on 91 laypersons appraising 45 short fictitious patient descriptions (case vignettes; N=4095 appraisals). Using signal detection theory and descriptive and inferential statistics, we explored whether the type of medical decision laypersons face, their confidence in their decision, and sociodemographic factors influence their triage accuracy and the type of errors they make. We distinguished between 2 decisions: whether emergency care was required (decision 1) and whether self-care was sufficient (decision 2).
resultsThe accuracy of detecting emergencies (decision 1) was higher (mean 82.2%, SD 5.9%) than that of deciding whether any type of medical care is required (decision 2, mean 75.9%, SD 5.25%; t
conclusionsOur study suggests that laypersons are overcautious in deciding whether they require medical care at all, but they miss identifying a considerable portion of emergencies. Our results further indicate that women are more risk averse than men in both types of decisions. Layperson participants made most triage errors when they were certain of their own appraisal. Thus, they might not follow or even seek advice (eg, from symptom checkers) in most instances where advice would be useful.
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.