ArticleBMC primary care2023
Supporting primary care through symptom checking artificial intelligence: a study of patient and physician attitudes in Italian general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Digitalization on European General Practice From the Perspective of General Practitioners: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) for Detecting Tuberous Breast Deformity from Standardized Photographs: A Descriptive in Silico Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical features of systemic amyloidosis: a scoping review.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI tool assisting primary healthcare physicians to diagnostic and treatment tasks.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- AI Triage in Primary Care: Building Safer and More Equitable Real-World Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of a digital symptom checker for endometriosis using a Markov decision process model.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Cyberchondria and complexity: a systems-level exploration of anxiety and informational instability in the digital age.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Understanding Acceptability of AI Triage Tools Amongst Underserved Populations: Lessons From the Early Phases of Co-Production With Bangladeshi Communities in Birmingham, UK.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in the prescription of acute medical treatments in primary healthcare - comparison of the performance of family physicians and ChatGPT.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Suitable Evaluation Frameworks for Disease-Agnostic Platforms for Remote Patient Monitoring: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Influences on trust in the use of AI-based triage-an interview study with primary healthcare professionals and patients in Sweden.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Examining South Tyrol's Experience: Digital Health Adoption and Workforce Issues in Implementing Italy's Primary Care Reform Under Ministerial Decree No. 77/2022.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Doctors, Their Patients, and the Symptom Checker App: Qualitative Interview Study With General Practitioners in Germany.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence Needs Data: Challenges Accessing Italian Databases to Train AI.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the adoption of AI-driven symptom checkers in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate both patients' and physicians' attitudes towards these tools in Italian general practice settings, focusing on their perceived utility, user satisfaction, and potential challenges.
methodsThis feasibility study involved ten general practitioners (GPs) and patients visiting GP offices. The patients used a chatbot-based symptom checker before their medical visit and conducted anamnestic screening for COVID-19 and a medical history algorithm concerning the current medical problem. The entered data were forwarded to the GP as medical history aid. After the medical visit, both physicians and patients evaluated their respective symptoms. Additionally, physicians performed a final overall evaluation of the symptom checker after the conclusion of the practice phase.
resultsMost patients did not use symptom checkers. Overall, 49% of patients and 27% of physicians reported being rather or very satisfied with the symptom checker. The most frequent patient-reported reasons for satisfaction were ease of use, precise and comprehensive questions, perceived time-saving potential, and encouragement of self-reflection. Every other patient would consider at-home use of the symptom checker for the first appraisal of health problems to save time, reduce unnecessary visits, and/or as an aid for the physician. Patients' attitudes towards the symptom checker were not significantly associated with age, sex, or level of education. Most patients (75%) and physicians (84%) indicated that the symptom checker had no effect on the duration of the medical visit. Only a few participants found the use of the symptom checker to be disruptive to the medical visit or its quality.
conclusionsThe findings suggest a positive reception of the symptom checker, albeit with differing focus between patients and physicians. With the potential to be integrated further into primary care, these tools require meticulous clinical guidance to maximize their benefits.
trial registrationThe study was not registered, as it did not include direct medical intervention on human participants.
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.