MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290188458 · doi:10.2196/40064

Patient Experience and Feedback After Using an Electronic Health Record–Integrated COVID-19 Symptom Checker: Survey Study

2022· article· en· W4290188458 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew W. Liu, Anobel Y. Odisho, William Brown, Ralph Gonzales, Aaron Neinstein, Timothy J. Judson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of California, San FranciscoAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTriageHotlineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographicsMedicineScheduleComputer scienceMedical emergencyPsychologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Symptom checkers have been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic to alleviate strain on health systems and offer patients a 24-7 self-service triage option. Although studies suggest that users may positively perceive web-based symptom checkers, no studies have quantified user feedback after use of an electronic health record-integrated COVID-19 symptom checker with self-scheduling functionality. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to understand user experience, user satisfaction, and user-reported alternatives to the use of a COVID-19 symptom checker with self-triage and self-scheduling functionality. METHODS: We launched a patient-portal-based self-triage and self-scheduling tool in March 2020 for patients with COVID-19 symptoms, exposures, or questions. We made an optional, anonymous Qualtrics survey available to patients immediately after they completed the symptom checker. RESULTS: Between December 16, 2021, and March 28, 2022, there were 395 unique responses to the survey. Overall, the respondents reported high satisfaction across all demographics, with a median rating of 8 out of 10 and 288/395 (47.6%) of the respondents giving a rating of 9 or 10 out of 10. User satisfaction scores were not associated with any demographic factors. The most common user-reported alternatives had the web-based tool not been available were calling the COVID-19 telephone hotline and sending a patient-portal message to their physician for advice. The ability to schedule a test online was the most important symptom checker feature for the respondents. The most common categories of user feedback were regarding other COVID-19 services (eg, telephone hotline), policies, or procedures, and requesting additional features or functionality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that COVID-19 symptom checkers with self-triage and self-scheduling functionality may have high overall user satisfaction, regardless of user demographics. By allowing users to self-triage and self-schedule tests and visits, tools such as this may prevent unnecessary calls and messages to clinicians. Individual feedback suggested that the user experience for this type of tool is highly dependent on the organization's operational workflows for COVID-19 testing and care. This study provides insight for the implementation and improvement of COVID-19 symptom checkers to ensure high user satisfaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207