Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42527456›Full record

Articlenpj health systems2025

Technology-supported self-triage decision making.

Marvin Kopka, Sonja Mei Wang, Samira Kunz, Christine Schmid, Markus A Feufel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Marvin KopkaDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. marvin.kopka@tu-berlin.de.
Sonja Mei WangDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Samira KunzDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christine SchmidDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Markus A FeufelDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used by laypeople to navigate care options. Although humans ultimately make a final decision when using these systems, previous research has typically examined the performance of humans and SAAs/LLMs separately. Thus, it is unclear how decision-making unfolds in such hybrid human-technology teams and if SAAs/LLMs can improve laypeople's decisions. To address this gap, we conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study with semi-structured interviews and a randomized controlled trial. Our interview data revealed that in human-technology teams, decision-making is influenced by factors before, during, and after interaction. Users tend to rely on technology for information gathering and analysis but remain responsible for information integration and the final decision. Based on these results, we developed a model for technology-assisted self-triage decision-making. Our quantitative results indicate that when using a high-performing SAA, laypeople's decision accuracy improved from 53.2% to 64.5% (OR = 2.52, p < 001). In contrast, decision accuracy remained unchanged when using a LLM (54.8% before vs. 54.2% after usage, p = 79). These findings highlight the importance of studying SAAs/LLMs with humans in the loop, as opposed to analyzing them in isolation.

Identifiers

PMID42527456
PMCPMC13354180

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.