Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Digital and online symptom checkers and assessment services for urgent care to inform a new digital platform: a systematic review›References

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Digital and online symptom checkers and assessment services for urgent care to inform a new digital platform: a systematic review · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · NIHR Journals Library · approximately 6 min read

  1. Chambers D, Cantrell AJ, Johnson M, Preston L, Baxter SK, Booth A, Turner J. Digital and online symptom checkers and health assessment/triage services for urgent health problems: systematic review. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027743. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027743
  2. NHS England. Statistical Work Areas NHS111: Minimum Data Set. Leeds: NHS England; 2018. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/nhs-111-minimum-data-set/statistical-work-areas-nhs-111-minimum-data-set-nhs-111-minimum-data-set-2018–19/ (accessed 31 May 2018).
  3. NHS England. Five Year Forward View. Leeds: NHS England; 2014.
  4. NHS England. Next Steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View. Leeds: NHS England; 2017.
  5. Turner J, O’Cathain A, Knowles E, Nicholl J. Impact of the urgent care telephone service NHS 111 pilot sites: a controlled before and after study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003451. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003451
  6. Semigran HL, Linder JA, Gidengil C, Mehrotra A. Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. BMJ 2015;351:h3480. 10.1136/bmj.h348026157077
  7. NHS England. NHS111 Online Evaluation. Leeds: NHS England; 2017.
  8. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. 10.1136/bmj.g168724609605
  9. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. URL: www.handbook.cochrane.org (accessed 2 May 2019).
  10. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Chapter 9: Assessing Methodological Quality. In Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009. URL: https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews (accessed 2 May 2019).
  11. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Study Quality Assessment Tools. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2019 URL: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed 1 May 2019).
  12. Baxter S, Johnson M, Chambers D, Sutton A, Goyder E, Booth A. The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:350. 10.1186/s12913-018-3161-329747651
  13. Semigran HL, Levine DM, Nundy S, Mehrotra A. Comparison of physician and computer diagnostic accuracy. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1860–1. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.600127723877
  14. Fraser HSF, Clamp S, Wilson CJ. Limitations of study on symptom checkers. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:740–1. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.033328460096
  15. Mehrotra A, Semigran HL, Levine DM, Nundy S. Limitations of study on symptom checkers – reply. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:741. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0351
  16. Kellermann AL, Isakov AP, Parker R, Handrigan MT, Foldy S. Web-based self-triage of influenza-like illness during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56:288–94.e6. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.04.00520605260
  17. Little P, Stuart B, Andreou P, McDermott L, Joseph J, Mullee M, et al. Primary care randomised controlled trial of a tailored interactive website for the self-management of respiratory infections (Internet Doctor). BMJ Open 2016;6:e009769. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009769
  18. Luger TM, Houston TK, Suls J. Older adult experience of online diagnosis: results from a scenario-based think-aloud protocol. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e16. 10.2196/jmir.292424434479
  19. Marco-Ruiz L, Bønes E, de la Asunción E, Gabarron E, Aviles-Solis JC, Lee E, et al. Combining multivariate statistics and the think-aloud protocol to assess human–computer interaction barriers in symptom checkers. J Biomed Inform 2017;74:104–22. 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.09.00228893671
  20. Nagykaldi Z, Calmbach W, Dealleaume L, Temte J, Mold J, Ryan JG. Facilitating patient self-management through telephony and web technologies in seasonal influenza. Inform Prim Care 2010;18:9–16. 10.14236/jhi.v18i1.74920429974
  21. Nijland N, Cranen K, Boer H, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Seydel ER. Patient use and compliance with medical advice delivered by a web-based triage system in primary care. J Telemed Telecare 2010;16:8–11. 10.1258/jtt.2009.00100420086260
  22. Poote AE, French DP, Dale J, Powell J. A study of automated self-assessment in a primary care student health centre setting. J Telemed Telecare 2014;20:123–7. 10.1177/1357633X1452924624643948
  23. Anhang Price R, Fagbuyi D, Harris R, Hanfling D, Place F, Taylor TB, Kellermann AL. Feasibility of web-based self-triage by parents of children with influenza-like illness: a cautionary tale. JAMA Pediatr 2013;167:112–18. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.157323254373
  24. Sole ML, Stuart PL, Deichen M. Web-based triage in a college health setting. J Am Coll Health 2006;54:289–94. 10.3200/JACH.54.5.289-29416539221
  25. Yardley L, Joseph J, Michie S, Weal M, Wills G, Little P. Evaluation of a web-based intervention providing tailored advice for self-management of minor respiratory symptoms: exploratory randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e66. 10.2196/jmir.159921159599
  26. Babylon Health. NHS111 Powered By Babylon: Outcomes Evaluation. London: Babylon Health; 2017.
  27. Middleton K, Butt M, Hammerla N, Hamblin S, Mehta K, Parsa A. Sorting Out Symptoms: Design and Evaluation of the ‘Babylon Check’ Automated Triage System. London: Babylon Health; 2016.
  28. Berry AC, Berry BB, Nakshabendi R, Kanar O, Avalos DJ, Myers T, et al. Evaluation of accuracy between online symptom checkers for diagnosis of gastrointestinal symptoms from MKSAP clinical vignette board review questions. Gastroenterology 2016;150:S849–50. 10.1016/s0016-5085(16)32869-4
  29. Berry AC, Berry NA, Wang B, Mulekar M, Melvin A, Berry BB. Symptom checkers versus doctors: a prospective, head-to-head comparison for GERD vs. non-GERD cough. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112(Suppl. 1):S190. 10.14309/00000434-201710001-00353
  30. Berry AC, Cash BD, Mulekar MS, Wang B, Melvin A, Berry BB. Symptom checkers vs. doctors, the ultimate test: a prospective study of patients presenting with abdominal pain. Gastroenterology 2017;152:S852–3. 10.1016/s0016-5085(17)32937-2
  31. Carter M, Fletcher E, Sansom A, Warren FC, Campbell JL. Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of an online alternative to face-to-face consultation in general practice: a mixed-methods study of webGP in six Devon practices. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018688. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018688
  32. Cowie J, Calveley E, Bowers G, Bowers J. Evaluation of a digital consultation and self-care advice tool in primary care: a multi-methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:E896. 10.3390/ijerph1505089629724040
  33. Nijland N, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Boer H, Steehouder MF, Seydel ER. Increasing the use of e-consultation in primary care: results of an online survey among non-users of e-consultation. Int J Med Inform 2009;78:688–703. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.06.00219625210
  34. Madan A. WebGP: The Virtual General Practice. London: Hurley Group; 2014.
  35. Backman AS, Lagerlund M, Svensson T, Blomqvist P, Adami J. Use of healthcare information and advice among non-urgent patients visiting emergency department or primary care. Emerg Med J 2012;29:1004–6. 10.1136/emermed-2011-20046421946178
  36. Joury AU, Alshathri M, Alkhunaizi M, Jaleesah N, Pines JM. Internet websites for chest pain symptoms demonstrate highly variable content and quality. Acad Emerg Med 2016;23:1146–52. 10.1111/acem.1303927341392
  37. Lanseng EJ, Andreassen TW. Electronic healthcare: a study of people’s readiness and attitude toward performing self-diagnosis. Int J Service Industry Manage 2007;18:394–417. 10.1108/09564230710778155
  38. Luger TM, Suls J. Online health information and intentions to seek healthcare. Psychosom Med 2011;73:A59.
  39. North F, Varkey P, Laing B, Cha SS, Tulledge-Scheitel S. Are e-health web users looking for different symptom information than callers to triage centers? Telemed J E Health 2011;17:19–24. 10.1089/tmj.2010.012021214306
  40. Health on the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for Medical and Health Web Sites (HONcode). Geneva: Health on the Net Foundation; 2019. URL: www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html (accessed 1 May 2019).
  41. Knowles E, O’Cathain A, Turner J, Nicholl J. Effect of a national urgent care telephone triage service on population perceptions of urgent care provision: controlled before and after study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011846. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011846
  42. O’Cathain A, Knowles E, Turner J, Nicholl J. Acceptability of NHS 111 the telephone service for urgent health care: cross sectional postal survey of users’ views. Fam Pract 2014;31:193–200. 10.1093/fampra/cmt07824334420
  43. Pope C, Turnbull J, Jones J, Prichard J, Rowsell A, Halford S. Has the NHS 111 urgent care telephone service been a success? Case study and secondary data analysis in England. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014815. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014815
  44. Committee on Health Literacy, Institute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
  45. Institute of Medicine. Assessing the Severity of Influenza-Like Illnesses: Clinical Algorithms to Inform and Empower Health Care Professionals and the Public. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. URL: www.iom.edu/Activities/PublicHealth/MedPrep/2009-SEP-03.aspx (accessed 25 October 2009).
  46. Banks J, Farr M, Salisbury C, Bernard E, Northstone K, Edwards H, Horwood J. Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: a qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract 2018;68:e1–e8. 10.3399/bjgp17X69350929109115
← Discussion and conclusionsAcknowledgements →

Attribution. Duncan Chambers; Anna Cantrell; Maxine Johnson; Louise Preston; Susan K Baxter; Andrew Booth et al. (2019). Digital and online symptom checkers and assessment services for urgent care to inform a new digital platform: a systematic review. NIHR Journals Library. Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. This work was produced by Chambers et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK545124. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support