Digital Triage Tools for Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Compared With General Practitioners’ Advice: Vignette-Based Qualitative Study With Interviews Among General Practitioners
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital triage tools for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing can potentially be used as a substitute for the triage that general practitioners (GPs) perform to lower their work pressure. The studied tool is based on medical guidelines. The same guidelines support GPs' decision-making process. However, research has shown that GPs make decisions from a holistic perspective and, therefore, do not always adhere to those guidelines. To have a high-quality digital triage tool that results in an efficient care process, it is important to learn more about GPs' decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to identify whether the advice of the studied digital triage tool aligned with GPs' daily medical practice. The second objective was to learn which factors influence GPs' decisions regarding referral for diagnostic testing. In addition, this study provides insights into GPs' decision-making process. METHODS: A qualitative vignette-based study using semistructured interviews was conducted. In total, 6 vignettes representing patient cases were discussed with the participants (GPs). The participants needed to think aloud whether they would advise an STI test for the patient and why. A thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts of the interviews. The vignette patient cases were also passed through the digital triage tool, resulting in advice to test or not for an STI. A comparison was made between the advice of the tool and that of the participants. RESULTS: In total, 10 interviews were conducted. Participants (GPs) had a mean age of 48.30 (SD 11.88) years. For 3 vignettes, the advice of the digital triage tool and of all participants was the same. In those vignettes, the patients' risk factors were sufficiently clear for the participants to advise the same as the digital tool. For 3 vignettes, the advice of the digital tool differed from that of the participants. Patient-related factors that influenced the participants' decision-making process were the patient's anxiety, young age, and willingness to be tested. Participants would test at a lower threshold than the triage tool because of those factors. Sometimes, participants wanted more information than was provided in the vignette or would like to conduct a physical examination. These elements were not part of the digital triage tool. CONCLUSIONS: The advice to conduct a diagnostic STI test differed between a digital triage tool and GPs. The digital triage tool considered only medical guidelines, whereas GPs were open to discussion reasoning from a holistic perspective. The GPs' decision-making process was influenced by patients' anxiety, willingness to be tested, and age. On the basis of these results, we believe that the digital triage tool for STI testing could support GPs and even replace consultations in the future. Further research must substantiate how this can be done safely.
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 | 0,014 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».