Impacts of Symptom Checkers for Laypersons' Self-diagnosis on Physicians in Primary Care: Scoping Review.
AI-based technology
artificial intelligence–based technology
general practice
mHealth
mobile health
mobile phone
scoping review
self-diagnosis
symptom checkers
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 05 2023
29 05 2023
Historique:
received:
03
05
2022
accepted:
23
04
2023
revised:
01
08
2022
medline:
31
5
2023
pubmed:
29
5
2023
entrez:
29
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Symptom checkers (SCs) for laypersons' self-assessment and preliminary self-diagnosis are widely used by the public. Little is known about the impact of these tools on health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care and their work. This is relevant to understanding how technological changes might affect the working world and how this is linked to work-related psychosocial demands and resources for HCPs. This scoping review aimed to systematically explore the existing publications on the impacts of SCs on HCPs in primary care and to identify knowledge gaps. We used the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We based our search string on the participant, concept, and context scheme and searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and CINAHL in January and June 2021. We performed a reference search in August 2021 and a manual search in November 2021. We included publications of peer-reviewed journals that focused on artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps and tools for laypersons and had primary care or nonclinical settings as a relevant context. The characteristics of these studies were described numerically. We used thematic analysis to identify core themes. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to report the study. Of the 2729 publications identified through initial and follow-up database searches, 43 full texts were screened for eligibility, of which 9 were included. Further 8 publications were included through manual search. Two publications were excluded after receiving feedback in the peer-review process. Fifteen publications were included in the final sample, which comprised 5 (33%) commentaries or nonresearch publications, 3 (20%) literature reviews, and 7 (47%) research publications. The earliest publications stemmed from 2015. We identified 5 themes. The theme finding prediagnosis comprised the comparison between SCs and physicians. We identified the performance of the diagnosis and the relevance of human factors as topics. In the theme layperson-technology relationship, we identified potentials for laypersons' empowerment and harm through SCs. Our analysis showed potential disruptions of the physician-patient relationship and uncontested roles of HCPs in the theme (impacts on) physician-patient relationship. In the theme impacts on HCPs' tasks, we described the reduction or increase in HCPs' workload. We identified potential transformations of HCPs' work and impacts on the health care system in the theme future role of SCs in health care. The scoping review approach was suitable for this new field of research. The heterogeneity of technologies and wordings was challenging. We identified research gaps in the literature regarding the impact of artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps or tools on the work of HCPs in primary care. Further empirical studies on HCPs' lived experiences are needed, as the current literature depicts expectations rather than empirical findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Symptom checkers (SCs) for laypersons' self-assessment and preliminary self-diagnosis are widely used by the public. Little is known about the impact of these tools on health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care and their work. This is relevant to understanding how technological changes might affect the working world and how this is linked to work-related psychosocial demands and resources for HCPs.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to systematically explore the existing publications on the impacts of SCs on HCPs in primary care and to identify knowledge gaps.
METHODS
We used the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We based our search string on the participant, concept, and context scheme and searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and CINAHL in January and June 2021. We performed a reference search in August 2021 and a manual search in November 2021. We included publications of peer-reviewed journals that focused on artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps and tools for laypersons and had primary care or nonclinical settings as a relevant context. The characteristics of these studies were described numerically. We used thematic analysis to identify core themes. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to report the study.
RESULTS
Of the 2729 publications identified through initial and follow-up database searches, 43 full texts were screened for eligibility, of which 9 were included. Further 8 publications were included through manual search. Two publications were excluded after receiving feedback in the peer-review process. Fifteen publications were included in the final sample, which comprised 5 (33%) commentaries or nonresearch publications, 3 (20%) literature reviews, and 7 (47%) research publications. The earliest publications stemmed from 2015. We identified 5 themes. The theme finding prediagnosis comprised the comparison between SCs and physicians. We identified the performance of the diagnosis and the relevance of human factors as topics. In the theme layperson-technology relationship, we identified potentials for laypersons' empowerment and harm through SCs. Our analysis showed potential disruptions of the physician-patient relationship and uncontested roles of HCPs in the theme (impacts on) physician-patient relationship. In the theme impacts on HCPs' tasks, we described the reduction or increase in HCPs' workload. We identified potential transformations of HCPs' work and impacts on the health care system in the theme future role of SCs in health care.
CONCLUSIONS
The scoping review approach was suitable for this new field of research. The heterogeneity of technologies and wordings was challenging. We identified research gaps in the literature regarding the impact of artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps or tools on the work of HCPs in primary care. Further empirical studies on HCPs' lived experiences are needed, as the current literature depicts expectations rather than empirical findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37247214
pii: v25i1e39219
doi: 10.2196/39219
pmc: PMC10262026
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e39219Informations de copyright
©Natalia Radionova, Eylem Ög, Anna-Jasmin Wetzel, Monika A Rieger, Christine Preiser. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 29.05.2023.
Références
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Mar;101(3):439-444
pubmed: 28882545
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020 Jun 16;270:966-970
pubmed: 32570525
EPMA J. 2010 Dec;1(4):535-47
pubmed: 23199108
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4
pubmed: 25034198
J Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 21;:
pubmed: 34290113
Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108
pubmed: 19490148
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Sep;63(9):1151-1160
pubmed: 32666180
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2021 Jan 25;2020:1354-1363
pubmed: 33936512
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Jun;63(6):681-689
pubmed: 32367207
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2020 May;27(1):
pubmed: 32385041
Nat Commun. 2020 Aug 11;11(1):3923
pubmed: 32782264
PeerJ. 2019 Oct 4;7:e7702
pubmed: 31592346
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Jul;69(684):324-325
pubmed: 31249070
Psychosomatics. 2016 Jul-Aug;57(4):390-400
pubmed: 27044514
Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Mar;25(1):61-71
pubmed: 34480711
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):422-423
pubmed: 31467001
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2021 Oct 18;16(1):47
pubmed: 34663355
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jan 6;20(1):5
pubmed: 31906985
Soc Sci Med. 2015 May;133:128-35
pubmed: 25864149
Health Informatics J. 2021 Oct-Dec;27(4):14604582211052259
pubmed: 34821152
Int Health. 2020 Jul 1;12(4):241-245
pubmed: 32300794
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 20;21(3):e12802
pubmed: 30892270
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 28;17(19):
pubmed: 32998397
Digit Health. 2021 Dec 08;7:20552076211063012
pubmed: 34917391
Front Artif Intell. 2020 Nov 30;3:543405
pubmed: 33733203
J Transl Med. 2020 Jan 9;18(1):14
pubmed: 31918710
Diagnosis (Berl). 2018 Sep 25;5(3):95-105
pubmed: 30032130
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Apr 4;19(1):45
pubmed: 32247316
JMIR Med Inform. 2019 May 01;7(2):e13445
pubmed: 31042151
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Dec;8(4):100493
pubmed: 33129176
Lancet. 2018 Nov 24;392(10161):2263-2264
pubmed: 30413281
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 05;21(4):e12887
pubmed: 30950796
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 1;9(8):e027743
pubmed: 31375610
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018 Mar;61(3):334-339
pubmed: 29411045
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jun 1;27(6):860-866
pubmed: 32267928
BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3480
pubmed: 26157077
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 10;23(3):e24475
pubmed: 33688845
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;259:77-84
pubmed: 30923277
JAMA. 2019 Jul 2;322(1):25-26
pubmed: 31002337
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jan 30;22(1):e14679
pubmed: 32012052
Med Educ Online. 2023 Dec;28(1):2182659
pubmed: 36855245
Diagnosis (Berl). 2015 Jun 1;2(2):89-96
pubmed: 29540025
JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 May 16;11(5):e34026
pubmed: 35576570
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0254088
pubmed: 34265845