ArticleOxford open digital health2024
Evaluation and significance of a digital assistant for patient history-taking and physical examination in telemedicine.
Article in Oxford open digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptance of Medical History-Taking Supported by Artificial Intelligence and Chatbots: A Population-Based Survey in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assisted history-taking systems can be used in provider-to-provider teleconsultations to task-shift the collection of evidence-based medical history and physical exam information to a frontline health worker. We developed such a task-shifting digital assistant, called 'Ayu', for nurses in rural India to collect clinical information from a patient and share it with a remote doctor to arrive at an accurate diagnosis and triage decision. Materials & Methods: We evaluated the ability of the task-shifting digital assistant to collect a comprehensive patient history by using 190 standardized patient case studies and evaluating the information recall of the assistant by a skilled clinician. Following this, we tested the ability of nurses to use the system by training and evaluating the system's accuracy when used by 19 nurses in rural Gujarat, India. We also measured the diagnostic and triage accuracy based on the generated history note. Finally, we evaluated the system's acceptability by using the Technology Acceptance Model framework. Results: Ayu could capture 65% of patient history information and 42% of physical exam information from patient case studies. When used by nurses, the mean accuracy of the generated clinical note was 7.71 ± 2.42. Using the information collected by a nurse using Ayu, a primary care physician could arrive at the correct diagnosis in 74% of cases, and correct triage decision in 88% of cases. Overall, we saw a high acceptability from nurses to use the system. Conclusions: Ayu can capture an acceptable proportion of clinical information and can aid in collecting an evidence-based medical history by task-shifting some of the early investigational steps. Further development of Ayu to increase its information retrieval ability and ease of use by health workers is needed.
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.