Impact of a Symptom Checker App on Patient-Physician Interaction Among Self-Referred Walk-In Patients in the Emergency Department: Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Background
Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are layperson-facing tools that advise on whether and where to seek care, or possible diagnoses. Previous research has primarily focused on evaluating the accuracy, safety, and usability of their recommendations. However, studies examining SCAs’ impact on clinical care, including the patient-physician interaction and satisfaction with care, remain scarce.
Objective
This study aims to evaluate the effects of an SCA on satisfaction with the patient-physician interaction in acute care settings. Additionally, we examined its influence on patients’ anxiety and trust in the treating physician.
Methods
This parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 emergency departments of an academic medical center and an emergency practice in Berlin, Germany. Low-acuity patients seeking care at these sites were randomly assigned to either self-assess their health complaints using a widely available commercial SCA (Ada Health) before their first encounter with the treating physician or receive usual care. The primary endpoint was patients’ satisfaction with the patient-physician interaction, measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ). The secondary outcomes were patients’ satisfaction with care, their anxiety levels, and physicians’ satisfaction with the patient-physician interaction. We used linear mixed models to assess the statistical significance of primary and secondary outcomes. Exploratory descriptive analyses examined patients’ and physicians’ perceptions of the SCA’s utility and the frequency of patients questioning their physician’s authority.
Results
Between April 11, 2022, and January 25, 2023, we approached 665 patients. A total of 363 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome (intervention: n=173, control: n=190). PSQ scores in the intervention group were similar to those in the control group (mean 78.5, SD 20.0 vs mean 80.8, SD 19.6; estimated difference –2.4, 95% CI –6.3 to 1.1, P=.24). Secondary outcomes, including patients’ and physicians’ satisfaction with care and patient anxiety, showed no significant group differences (all P>.05). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report that the SCA had a beneficial (66/164, 40.2%) rather than a detrimental (3/164, 1.8%) impact on the patient-physician interaction, with most reporting no effect (95/164, 57.9%). Similar patterns were observed regarding the SCA’s perceived effect on care. In both groups, physicians rarely reported that their authority had been questioned by a patient (intervention: 2/188, 1.1%; control: 4/184, 2.2%). While physicians more often found the SCA helpful rather than unhelpful, the majority indicated it was neither helpful nor unhelpful for the encounter.
Conclusions
We found no evidence that the SCA improved satisfaction with the patient-physician interaction or care in an acute care setting. By contrast, both patients and their treating physicians predominantly described the SCA’s impact as beneficial. Our study did not identify negative effects of SCA use commonly reported in the literature, such as increased anxiety or diminished trust in health care professionals.
Trial Registration
German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00028598; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00028598/entails
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)
RR2-10.1186/s13063-022-06688-w
