Suppr超能文献

非专业人员的分诊能力:回顾性探索性分析

The Triage Capability of Laypersons: Retrospective Exploratory Analysis.

作者信息

Kopka Marvin, Feufel Markus A, Balzer Felix, Schmieding Malte L

机构信息

Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

JMIR Form Res. 2022 Oct 12;6(10):e38977. doi: 10.2196/38977.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although medical decision-making may be thought of as a task involving health professionals, many decisions, including critical health-related decisions are made by laypersons alone. Specifically, as the first step to most care episodes, it is the patient who determines whether and where to seek health care (triage). Overcautious self-assessments (ie, overtriaging) may lead to overutilization of health care facilities and overcrowded emergency departments, whereas imprudent decisions (ie, undertriaging) constitute a risk to the patient's health. Recently, patient-facing decision support systems, commonly known as symptom checkers, have been developed to assist laypersons in these decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing laypersons' ability to self-triage and their risk averseness in self-triage decisions.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available data on 91 laypersons appraising 45 short fictitious patient descriptions (case vignettes; N=4095 appraisals). Using signal detection theory and descriptive and inferential statistics, we explored whether the type of medical decision laypersons face, their confidence in their decision, and sociodemographic factors influence their triage accuracy and the type of errors they make. We distinguished between 2 decisions: whether emergency care was required (decision 1) and whether self-care was sufficient (decision 2).

RESULTS

The accuracy of detecting emergencies (decision 1) was higher (mean 82.2%, SD 5.9%) than that of deciding whether any type of medical care is required (decision 2, mean 75.9%, SD 5.25%; t=8.4; P<.001; Cohen d=0.9). Sensitivity for decision 1 was lower (mean 67.5%, SD 16.4%) than its specificity (mean 89.6%, SD 8.6%) whereas sensitivity for decision 2 was higher (mean 90.5%, SD 8.3%) than its specificity (mean 46.7%, SD 15.95%). Female participants were more risk averse and overtriaged more often than male participants, but age and level of education showed no association with participants' risk averseness. Participants' triage accuracy was higher when they were certain about their appraisal (2114/3381, 62.5%) than when being uncertain (378/714, 52.9%). However, most errors occurred when participants were certain of their decision (1267/1603, 79%). Participants were more commonly certain of their overtriage errors (mean 80.9%, SD 23.8%) than their undertriage errors (mean 72.5%, SD 30.9%; t=3.7; P<.001; d=0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that laypersons are overcautious in deciding whether they require medical care at all, but they miss identifying a considerable portion of emergencies. Our results further indicate that women are more risk averse than men in both types of decisions. Layperson participants made most triage errors when they were certain of their own appraisal. Thus, they might not follow or even seek advice (eg, from symptom checkers) in most instances where advice would be useful.

摘要

背景

尽管医疗决策可能被认为是一项涉及医疗专业人员的任务,但许多决策,包括与健康相关的关键决策,都是由非专业人员独自做出的。具体而言,作为大多数医疗过程的第一步,是患者决定是否以及在何处寻求医疗护理(分诊)。过度谨慎的自我评估(即过度分诊)可能导致医疗设施的过度使用和急诊科的过度拥挤,而轻率的决策(即分诊不足)则会对患者的健康构成风险。最近,已开发出面向患者的决策支持系统,通常称为症状检查器,以协助非专业人员做出这些决策。

目的

本研究的目的是确定影响非专业人员自我分诊能力及其在自我分诊决策中的风险规避的因素。

方法

我们分析了91名非专业人员评估45个简短虚构患者描述(病例 vignettes;N = 4095次评估)的公开可用数据。使用信号检测理论以及描述性和推断性统计,我们探讨了非专业人员面临的医疗决策类型、他们对决策的信心以及社会人口统计学因素是否会影响他们的分诊准确性以及他们所犯错误的类型。我们区分了两个决策:是否需要急诊护理(决策1)以及自我护理是否足够(决策2)。

结果

检测紧急情况(决策1)的准确性(平均82.2%,标准差5.9%)高于决定是否需要任何类型的医疗护理(决策2,平均75.9%,标准差5.25%;t = 8.4;P <.001;Cohen d = 0.9)。决策1的敏感性(平均67.5%,标准差16.4%)低于其特异性(平均89.6%,标准差8.6%),而决策2的敏感性(平均90.5%,标准差8.3%)高于其特异性(平均46.7%,标准差15.95%)。女性参与者比男性参与者更规避风险且过度分诊更频繁,但年龄和教育水平与参与者的风险规避无关。当参与者对自己的评估确定时(2114/3381,62.5%),他们的分诊准确性高于不确定时(378/714,52.9%)。然而,大多数错误发生在参与者对自己的决策确定时(1267/1603,79%)。参与者对过度分诊错误的确定程度(平均80.9%،标准差23.8%)高于对分诊不足错误的确定程度(平均72.5%,标准差30.9%;t = 3.7;P <.001;d = 0.39)。

结论

我们的研究表明,非专业人员在决定自己是否根本需要医疗护理时过于谨慎,但他们错过了识别相当一部分紧急情况。我们的结果进一步表明,在这两种类型的决策中,女性比男性更规避风险。非专业人员参与者在对自己的评估确定时犯了大多数分诊错误。因此,在大多数建议会有用的情况下,他们可能不会遵循甚至寻求建议(例如,来自症状检查器的建议)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6bc4/9607917/f73979946936/formative_v6i10e38977_fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验