Improving Patient-Centered Dementia Screening for General, Multicultural Population and Persons with Disabilities from Primary Care Professionals with a Web-Based App.

BACKGROUND: Primary care serves as the first point of contact for people with dementia and is therefore a promising setting for screening, assessment, and initiation of specific treatment and care. According to literature, online applications can be effective by addressing different needs, such as screening, health counseling, and improving overall health status. AIM: Our goal was to propose a brief, inexpensive, noninvasive strategy for screening dementia to general, multicultural population and persons with disabilities, through a web-based app with a tailored multicomponent design. METHODS: We designed and developed a web-based application, which combines cognitive tests and biomarkers to assist primary care professionals screen dementia. We then conducted an implementation study to measure the usability of the app. Two groups of experts participated for the selection of the screening instruments, following the Delhi method. Then, 16 primary care professionals assessed the app to their patients (n = 132), and after they measured its usability with System Usability Scale. OUTCOMES: Two cognitive tools were integrated in the app, GPCOG and RUDAS, which are adequate for primary care settings and for screening multicultural and special needs population, without educational or language bias. Also, for assessing biomarkers, the CAIDE model was preferred, which resulted in individualized proposals, concerning the modifiable risk factors. Usability scored high for the majority of users. CONCLUSION: Utilization of the Dementia app could be incorporated into the routine practices of existing healthcare services and screening of multiple population for dementia.

Triage Accuracy of Symptom Checker Apps: 5-Year Follow-up Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Symptom checkers are digital tools assisting laypersons in self-assessing the urgency and potential causes of their medical complaints. They are widely used but face concerns from both patients and health care professionals, especially regarding their accuracy. A 2015 landmark study substantiated these concerns using case vignettes to demonstrate that symptom checkers commonly err in their triage assessment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to revisit the landmark index study to investigate whether and how symptom checkers' capabilities have evolved since 2015 and how they currently compare with laypersons' stand-alone triage appraisal. METHODS: In early 2020, we searched for smartphone and web-based applications providing triage advice. We evaluated these apps on the same 45 case vignettes as the index study. Using descriptive statistics, we compared our findings with those of the index study and with publicly available data on laypersons' triage capability. RESULTS: We retrieved 22 symptom checkers providing triage advice. The median triage accuracy in 2020 (55.8%, IQR 15.1%) was close to that in 2015 (59.1%, IQR 15.5%). The apps in 2020 were less risk averse (odds 1.11:1, the ratio of overtriage errors to undertriage errors) than those in 2015 (odds 2.82:1), missing >40% of emergencies. Few apps outperformed laypersons in either deciding whether emergency care was required or whether self-care was sufficient. No apps outperformed the laypersons on both decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Triage performance of symptom checkers has, on average, not improved over the course of 5 years. It decreased in 2 use cases (advice on when emergency care is required and when no health care is needed for the moment). However, triage capability varies widely within the sample of symptom checkers. Whether it is beneficial to seek advice from symptom checkers depends on the app chosen and on the specific question to be answered. Future research should develop resources (eg, case vignette repositories) to audit the capabilities of symptom checkers continuously and independently and provide guidance on when and to whom they should be recommended.

Benchmarking Triage Capability of Symptom Checkers Against That of Medical Laypersons: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptom checkers (SCs) are tools developed to provide clinical decision support to laypersons. Apart from suggesting probable diagnoses, they commonly advise when users should seek care (triage advice). SCs have become increasingly popular despite prior studies rating their performance as mediocre. To date, it is unclear whether SCs can triage better than those who might choose to use them. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare triage accuracy between SCs and their potential users (ie, laypersons). METHODS: On Amazon Mechanical Turk, we recruited 91 adults from the United States who had no professional medical background. In a web-based survey, the participants evaluated 45 fictitious clinical case vignettes. Data for 15 SCs that had processed the same vignettes were obtained from a previous study. As main outcome measures, we assessed the accuracy of the triage assessments made by participants and SCs for each of the three triage levels (ie, emergency care, nonemergency care, self-care) and overall, the proportion of participants outperforming each SC in terms of accuracy, and the risk aversion of participants and SCs by comparing the proportion of cases that were overtriaged. RESULTS: The mean overall triage accuracy was similar for participants (60.9%, SD 6.8%; 95% CI 59.5%-62.3%) and SCs (58%, SD 12.8%). Most participants outperformed all but 5 SCs. On average, SCs more reliably detected emergencies (80.6%, SD 17.9%) than laypersons did (67.5%, SD 16.4%; 95% CI 64.1%-70.8%). Although both SCs and participants struggled with cases requiring self-care (the least urgent triage category), SCs more often wrongly classified these cases as emergencies (43/174, 24.7%) compared with laypersons (56/1365, 4.10%). CONCLUSIONS: Most SCs had no greater triage capability than an average layperson, although the triage accuracy of the five best SCs was superior to the accuracy of most participants. SCs might improve early detection of emergencies but might also needlessly increase resource utilization in health care. Laypersons sometimes require support in deciding when to rely on self-care but it is in that very situation where SCs perform the worst. Further research is needed to determine how to best combine the strengths of humans and SCs.

Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of Symptom Checkers: Clinical Vignette Study.

BACKGROUND: Medical self-diagnostic tools (or symptom checkers) are becoming an integral part of digital health and our daily lives, whereby patients are increasingly using them to identify the underlying causes of their symptoms. As such, it is essential to rigorously investigate and comprehensively report the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers using standard clinical and scientific approaches. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate and report the accuracies of a few known and new symptom checkers using a standard and transparent methodology, which allows the scientific community to cross-validate and reproduce the reported results, a step much needed in health informatics. METHODS: We propose a 4-stage experimentation methodology that capitalizes on the standard clinical vignette approach to evaluate 6 symptom checkers. To this end, we developed and peer-reviewed 400 vignettes, each approved by at least 5 out of 7 independent and experienced primary care physicians. To establish a frame of reference and interpret the results of symptom checkers accordingly, we further compared the best-performing symptom checker against 3 primary care physicians with an average experience of 16.6 (SD 9.42) years. To measure accuracy, we used 7 standard metrics, including M1 as a measure of a symptom checker's or a physician's ability to return a vignette's main diagnosis at the top of their differential list, F1-score as a trade-off measure between recall and precision, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) as a measure of a differential list's ranking quality, among others. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies of the 6 tested symptom checkers vary significantly. For instance, the differences in the M1, F1-score, and NDCG results between the best-performing and worst-performing symptom checkers or ranges were 65.3%, 39.2%, and 74.2%, respectively. The same was observed among the participating human physicians, whereby the M1, F1-score, and NDCG ranges were 22.8%, 15.3%, and 21.3%, respectively. When compared against each other, physicians outperformed the best-performing symptom checker by an average of 1.2% using F1-score, whereas the best-performing symptom checker outperformed physicians by averages of 10.2% and 25.1% using M1 and NDCG, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The performance variation between symptom checkers is substantial, suggesting that symptom checkers cannot be treated as a single entity. On a different note, the best-performing symptom checker was an artificial intelligence (AI)-based one, shedding light on the promise of AI in improving the diagnostic capabilities of symptom checkers, especially as AI keeps advancing exponentially.

Assessment of a Digital Symptom Checker Tool's Accuracy in Suggesting Reproductive Health Conditions: Clinical Vignettes Study.

BACKGROUND: Reproductive health conditions such as endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affect a large proportion of women and people who menstruate worldwide. Prevalence estimates for these conditions range from 5% to 40% of women of reproductive age. Long diagnostic delays, up to 12 years, are common and contribute to health complications and increased health care costs. Symptom checker apps provide users with information and tools to better understand their symptoms and thus have the potential to reduce the time to diagnosis for reproductive health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between clinicians and 3 symptom checkers (developed by Flo Health UK Limited) in assessing symptoms of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and PCOS using vignettes. We also aimed to present a robust example of vignette case creation, review, and classification in the context of predeployment testing and validation of digital health symptom checker tools. METHODS: Independent general practitioners were recruited to create clinical case vignettes of simulated users for the purpose of testing each condition symptom checker; vignettes created for each condition contained a mixture of condition-positive and condition-negative outcomes. A second panel of general practitioners then reviewed, approved, and modified (if necessary) each vignette. A third group of general practitioners reviewed each vignette case and designated a final classification. Vignettes were then entered into the symptom checkers by a fourth, different group of general practitioners. The outcomes of each symptom checker were then compared with the final classification of each vignette to produce accuracy metrics including percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 24 cases were created per condition. Overall, exact matches between the vignette general practitioner classification and the symptom checker outcome were 83% (n=20) for endometriosis, 83% (n=20) for uterine fibroids, and 88% (n=21) for PCOS. For each symptom checker, sensitivity was reported as 81.8% for endometriosis, 84.6% for uterine fibroids, and 100% for PCOS; specificity was reported as 84.6% for endometriosis, 81.8% for uterine fibroids, and 75% for PCOS; positive predictive value was reported as 81.8% for endometriosis, 84.6% for uterine fibroids, 80% for PCOS; and negative predictive value was reported as 84.6% for endometriosis, 81.8% for uterine fibroids, and 100% for PCOS. CONCLUSIONS: The single-condition symptom checkers have high levels of agreement with general practitioner classification for endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and PCOS. Given long delays in diagnosis for many reproductive health conditions, which lead to increased medical costs and potential health complications for individuals and health care providers, innovative health apps and symptom checkers hold the potential to improve care pathways.