Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36795074›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

How the UK public views the use of diagnostic decision aids by physicians: a vignette-based experiment.

Martine Nurek, Olga Kostopoulou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Determinants of Physicians' Referrals for Suspected Cancer Given a Risk-Prediction Algorithm: Linking Signal Detection and Fuzzy Trace Theory.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Martine NurekDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Olga KostopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9643-0838

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25310Cancer Research UK C37891/A25310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePhysicians' low adoption of diagnostic decision aids (DDAs) may be partially due to concerns about patient/public perceptions. We investigated how the UK public views DDA use and factors affecting perceptions. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this online experiment, 730 UK adults were asked to imagine attending a medical appointment where the doctor used a computerized DDA. The DDA recommended a test to rule out serious disease. We varied the test's invasiveness, the doctor's adherence to DDA advice, and the severity of the patient's disease. Before disease severity was revealed, respondents indicated how worried they felt. Both before [t1] and after [t2] severity was revealed, we measured satisfaction with the consultation, likelihood of recommending the doctor, and suggested frequency of DDA use.

resultsAt both timepoints, satisfaction and likelihood of recommending the doctor increased when the doctor adhered to DDA advice (P ≤ .01), and when the DDA suggested an invasive versus noninvasive test (P ≤ .05). The effect of adherence to DDA advice was stronger when participants were worried (P ≤ .05), and the disease turned out to be serious (P ≤ .01). Most respondents felt that DDAs should be used by doctors "sparingly" (34%[t1]/29%[t2]), "frequently," (43%[t1]/43%[t2]) or "always" (17%[t1]/21%[t2]). DISCUSSION: People are more satisfied when doctors adhere to DDA advice, especially when worried, and when it helps to spot serious disease. Having to undergo an invasive test does not appear to dampen satisfaction.

conclusionPositive attitudes regarding DDA use and satisfaction with doctors adhering to DDA advice could encourage greater use of DDAs in consultations.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansAdultDecision Support TechniquesHumansPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomartificial intelligencedecision aidsdiagnosishealth regulatory focusindividual differencestrust in physiciansworry

Identifiers

PMID36795074
PMCPMC10114121

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.