Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38434790›Full record

ArticleDigital health

'Better see a doctor?' Status quo of symptom checker apps in Germany: A cross-sectional survey with a mixed-methods design (CHECK.APP).

Anna-Jasmin Wetzel, Roland Koch, Nadine Koch, Malte Klemmt, Regina Müller, Christine Preiser, Monika Rieger, Inka Rösel, Robert Ranisch, Hans-Jörg Ehni and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anna-Jasmin WetzelInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-5867
Roland KochInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Nadine KochInstitute of Software Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Malte KlemmtInstitute of Applied Social Science, University of Applied Science Würzburg-Schweinfurt, Wurzburg, Germany.
Regina MüllerInstitute of Philosophy, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Christine PreiserInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-3663
Inka RöselInstitute of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Robert RanischFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Hans-Jörg EhniInstitute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
University Children's Hospital Tübingen · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DETechnical University of Applied Sciences Würzburg-Schweinfurt · DEUniversity of Bremen · DEUniversity of Potsdam · DEUniversity of Stuttgart · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Symptom checker apps (SCAs) offer symptom classification and low-threshold self-triage for laypeople. They are already in use despite their poor accuracy and concerns that they may negatively affect primary care. This study assesses the extent to which SCAs are used by medical laypeople in Germany and which software is most popular. We examined associations between satisfaction with the general practitioner (GP) and SCA use as well as the number of GP visits and SCA use. Furthermore, we assessed the reasons for intentional non-use. Methods: We conducted a survey comprising standardised and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were weighted, and open-ended responses were examined using thematic analysis. Results: This study included 850 participants. The SCA usage rate was 8%, and approximately 50% of SCA non-users were uninterested in trying SCAs. The most commonly used SCAs were NetDoktor and Ada. Surprisingly, SCAs were most frequently used in the age group of 51-55 years. No significant associations were found between SCA usage and satisfaction with the GP or the number of GP visits and SCA usage. Thematic analysis revealed skepticism regarding the results and recommendations of SCAs and discrepancies between users' requirements and the features of apps. Conclusion: SCAs are still widely unknown in the German population and have been sparsely used so far. Many participants were not interested in trying SCAs, and we found no positive or negative associations of SCAs and primary care.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealthprimary careself-diagnosisself-triageSymptom checker apps

Identifiers

PMID38434790
PMCPMC10908232
OpenAlexW4392398158

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.