Hennemann Severin, Kuhn Sebastian, Witthöft Michael, Jungmann Stefanie M
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Department of Digital Medicine, Medical Faculty OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
JMIR Ment Health. 2022 Jan 31;9(1):e32832. doi: 10.2196/32832.
Digital technologies have become a common starting point for health-related information-seeking. Web- or app-based symptom checkers aim to provide rapid and accurate condition suggestions and triage advice but have not yet been investigated for mental disorders in routine health care settings.
This study aims to test the diagnostic performance of a widely available symptom checker in the context of formal diagnosis of mental disorders when compared with therapists' diagnoses based on structured clinical interviews.
Adult patients from an outpatient psychotherapy clinic used the app-based symptom checker Ada-check your health (ADA; Ada Health GmbH) at intake. Accuracy was assessed as the agreement of the first and 1 of the first 5 condition suggestions of ADA with at least one of the interview-based therapist diagnoses. In addition, sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliabilities (Gwet first-order agreement coefficient [AC1]) were calculated for the 3 most prevalent disorder categories. Self-reported usability (assessed using the System Usability Scale) and acceptance of ADA (assessed using an adapted feedback questionnaire) were evaluated.
A total of 49 patients (30/49, 61% women; mean age 33.41, SD 12.79 years) were included in this study. Across all patients, the interview-based diagnoses matched ADA's first condition suggestion in 51% (25/49; 95% CI 37.5-64.4) of cases and 1 of the first 5 condition suggestions in 69% (34/49; 95% CI 55.4-80.6) of cases. Within the main disorder categories, the accuracy of ADA's first condition suggestion was 0.82 for somatoform and associated disorders, 0.65 for affective disorders, and 0.53 for anxiety disorders. Interrater reliabilities ranged from low (AC1=0.15 for anxiety disorders) to good (AC1=0.76 for somatoform and associated disorders). The usability of ADA was rated as high in the System Usability Scale (mean 81.51, SD 11.82, score range 0-100). Approximately 71% (35/49) of participants would have preferred a face-to-face over an app-based diagnostic.
Overall, our findings suggest that a widely available symptom checker used in the formal diagnosis of mental disorders could provide clinicians with a list of condition suggestions with moderate-to-good accuracy. However, diagnostic performance was heterogeneous between disorder categories and included low interrater reliability. Although symptom checkers have some potential to complement the diagnostic process as a screening tool, the diagnostic performance should be tested in larger samples and in comparison with further diagnostic instruments.
数字技术已成为寻求健康相关信息的常见起点。基于网络或应用程序的症状检查器旨在提供快速准确的病情建议和分诊建议,但在常规医疗环境中尚未针对精神障碍进行研究。
本研究旨在测试一种广泛使用的症状检查器在精神障碍正式诊断背景下的诊断性能,并与基于结构化临床访谈的治疗师诊断进行比较。
来自门诊心理治疗诊所的成年患者在就诊时使用基于应用程序的症状检查器Ada - 检查您的健康状况(ADA;Ada Health GmbH)。准确性评估为ADA的前5个病情建议中的第1个建议与至少一个基于访谈的治疗师诊断的一致性。此外,还计算了3种最常见疾病类别的敏感性、特异性和评分者间信度(Gwet一阶一致性系数[AC1])。评估了自我报告的可用性(使用系统可用性量表进行评估)和对ADA的接受度(使用改编的反馈问卷进行评估)。
本研究共纳入49例患者(30/49,61%为女性;平均年龄33.41岁,标准差12.79岁)。在所有患者中,基于访谈的诊断与ADA的第一个病情建议在51%(25/49;95%置信区间37.5 - 64.4)的病例中匹配,与前5个病情建议中的1个在69%(34/49;95%置信区间55.4 - 80.6)的病例中匹配。在主要疾病类别中,ADA第一个病情建议的准确性在躯体形式及相关障碍中为0.82,在情感障碍中为0.65,在焦虑障碍中为0.53。评分者间信度从低(焦虑障碍的AC1 = 0.15)到高(躯体形式及相关障碍的AC1 = 0.76)不等。ADA的可用性在系统可用性量表中被评为高(平均81.51,标准差11.82,评分范围0 - 100)。约71%(35/49)的参与者更喜欢面对面诊断而非基于应用程序的诊断。
总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,在精神障碍正式诊断中使用的一种广泛可用的症状检查器可以为临床医生提供准确性中等至良好的病情建议列表。然而,不同疾病类别之间的诊断性能存在差异,且评分者间信度较低。尽管症状检查器作为一种筛查工具在补充诊断过程方面有一定潜力,但应在更大样本中并与更多诊断工具进行比较来测试其诊断性能。