A Digital-First Health Care Approach to Managing Pandemics: Scoping Review of Pandemic Self-triage Tools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patient-facing digital self-triage tools were designed and deployed to alleviate the demand for pandemic virus triage in hospitals and physicians' offices by providing a way for people to self-assess their health status and get advice on whether to seek care. These tools, provided via websites, apps, or patient portals, allow people to answer questions, for example, about symptoms and contact history, and receive guidance on appropriate care, which might be self-care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to explore the state of literature on digital self-triage tools that direct or advise care for adults during a pandemic and to explore what has been learned about the intended purpose, use, and quality of guidance; tool usability; impact on providers; and ability to forecast health outcomes or care demand. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in July 2021 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. A total of 1311 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 researchers using Covidence, and of these, 83 (6.76%) articles were reviewed via full-text screening. In total, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria; they allowed adults to self-assess for pandemic virus, and the adults were directed to care. Using Microsoft Excel, we extracted and charted the following data: authors, publication year and country, country the tool was used in, whether the tool was integrated into a health care system, number of users, research question and purpose, direction of care provided, and key findings. RESULTS: All but 2 studies reported on tools developed since early 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies reported on tools that were developed in 17 countries. The direction of care advice included directing to an emergency room, seeking urgent care, contacting or seeing a physician, being tested, or staying at home and self-isolating. Only 2 studies evaluated tool usability. No study demonstrated that the tools reduce demand on the health care system, although at least one study suggested that data can predict demand for care and that data allow monitoring public health. CONCLUSIONS: Although self-triage tools developed and used around the world have similarities in directing to care (emergency room, physician, and self-care), they differ in important ways. Some collect data to predict health care demand. Some are intended for use when concerned about health status; others are intended to be used repeatedly by users to monitor public health. The quality of triage may vary. The high use of such tools during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that research is needed to assess and ensure the quality of advice given by self-triage tools and to assess intended or unintended consequences on public health and health care systems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,029 | 0,025 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».