ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Unveiling Usage Patterns and Explaining Usage of Symptom Checker Apps: Explorative Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a Symptom Checker App on Patient-Physician Interaction Among Self-Referred Walk-In Patients in the Emergency Department: Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Exploring Laypersons' Experiences With a Mobile Symptom Checker App as an Interface Between eHealth Literacy, Health Literacy, and Health-Related Behavior: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSymptom checker apps (SCA) aim to enable individuals without medical training to classify perceived symptoms and receive guidance on appropriate actions, such as self-care or seeking professional medical attention. However, there is a lack of detailed understanding regarding the contexts in which individuals use SCA and their opinions on these tools.
objectiveThis mixed methods study aims to explore the circumstances under which medical laypeople use SCA and to identify which aspects users find noteworthy after using SCA.
methodsA total of 48 SCA users documented their medical symptoms, provided open-ended responses, and recorded their SCA use along with other variables over 6 weeks in a longitudinal study. Generalized linear mixed models with and those without regularization were applied to consider the hierarchical structure of the data, and the models' outcomes were evaluated for comparison. Qualitative data were analyzed through Kuckartz qualitative content analysis.
resultsSignificant predictors of SCA use included the initial occurrence of symptoms, day of measurement (odds ratio [OR] 0.97), self-rated health (OR 0.80, P<.001), and the following International Classification in Primary Care-2-classified symptoms, that are general and unspecified (OR 3.33, P<.001), eye (OR 5.56, P=.001), cardiovascular (OR 8.33, P<.001), musculoskeletal (OR 5.26, P<.001), and skin (OR 4.76, P<.001). The day of measurement and self-rated health showed minor importance due to their small effect sizes. Qualitative analysis highlighted four main themes: (1) reasons for using SCA, (2) diverse affective responses, (3) a broad spectrum of behavioral reactions, and (4) unmet needs including a lack of personalization.
conclusionsThe emergence of new and unfamiliar symptoms was a strong determinant for SCA use. Specific International Classification in Primary Care-rated symptom clusters, particularly those related to cardiovascular, eye, skin, general, and unspecified symptoms, were also highly predictive of SCA use. The varied applications of SCA fit into the concept of health literacy as bricolage, where SCA is leveraged as flexible tools by patients based on individual and situational requirements, functioning alongside other health care resources.
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.