Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37096688›Full record

ArticleSocial studies of science2023

Data as symptom: Doctors' responses to patient-provided data in general practice.

Christoffer Bjerre Haase, Rola Ajjawi, Margaret Bearman, John Brandt Brodersen, Torsten Risor, Klaus Hoeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social studies of science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Overdiagnosis in atrial fibrillation screening with wearables.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Christoffer Bjerre HaaseUniversity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3895-518X
Rola AjjawiDeakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Margaret BearmanDeakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6862-9871
John Brandt BrodersenUniversity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Torsten RisorUniversity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus HoeyerUniversity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2780-4784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationHumansQualitative Researchdataficationdata infrastructuredata workdiagnosisgeneral practicePatient Reported Outcomesrecontextualizationsymptom checkerswearables

Identifiers

PMID37096688
PMCPMC10363926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.