Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36222793›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

The Triage Capability of Laypersons: Retrospective Exploratory Analysis.

Marvin Kopka, Markus A Feufel, Felix Balzer, Malte L Schmieding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Marvin KopkaInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3848-1471
Markus A FeufelDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0563-8831
Felix BalzerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-2056
Malte L SchmiedingInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5844-7791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

accuracycarecare navigationdecisiondecision supportdigital healthemergencyerrorfemalehealth professionalmalemedicalpatientpatient-centered careself-assessmentself-triagesensitivitysupportsymptom checkertriageurgency assessment

Identifiers

PMID36222793
PMCPMC9607917

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.