ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Use of a digital health navigator in the emergency department: experiences and acceptance among patients and physicians].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing use of emergency departments (EDs) for low-acuity cases leads to growing challenges for hospitals. Since 2023, a digital patient navigator (DGL) has been implemented in the ED of the University Hospital Halle (Saale). The AI-based decision support system provides an initial assessment based on a symptom-based self-anamnesis and recommends appropriate care pathways; the collected data are also available to medical staff for consultation. This study examines patients' user experiences and evaluations as well as physicians' acceptance and use of the DGL results.
methodsIn an exploratory convergent mixed-methods study, 82 patients classified in Manchester Triage Levels 4 or 5 were surveyed using the UEQ‑S and eHEALS instruments (August 2025 to January 2026). A further eight physicians were interviewed and analyzed using structured qualitative content analysis.
resultsBoth groups were generally open to the usage of the DGL. Patients rated comprehensibility (61%), design (54%), and data security (52%) mostly positively, while the symptom assessment was criticized. Unstable internet connections and a lack of technical equipment made usage difficult. Physicians expressed concerns regarding validity and reliability. An integration into workflows was not established. Patients saw potential in the initial orientation, while physicians saw potentials in (post-)triage and decisions regarding waiting times, information structuring, and overcoming language barriers. Time constraints and the patients' health limitations and impairments limited the use in the ED. DISCUSSION: Critical to the implementation of the DGL was systemic fitting rather than individual acceptance. Technical barriers need to be addressed; better information and flexible data collection were deficits that hindered the sustained integration into clinical workflows. This should be the focus of future research.
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.