Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the quality of condition suggestion and urgency advice provided by the Ada symptom assessment application and to compare it to published literature evaluation of free website and mobile symptom assessment applications accessible in Australia. Design: The application was tested with 48 independently created medical condition vignettes using an externally developed methodology. Main outcome measures: Correct condition suggestion (provided in first, the top three or top ten condition suggestion results); correct level of urgency advice (appropriate urgency category recommended). Results: The correct condition suggestion was listed first in 65% of vignettes, and included among the first three results in 83% of vignettes. Urgency advice was exactly matching the vignette gold standard in 63% of cases, including about 67% of emergency and urgent cases and 57% of less serious case vignettes. Conclusions: This study provides an analysis of the performance of one of the most used symptom assessment applications in Australia, the Ada app, which had not previously been evaluated in the literature in an Australia specific context. The app's accuracy of condition suggestion and its provision of appropriate urgency advice is higher than of other symptom assessment apps evaluated in this context in the literature. We strive for continual improvement to ensure the most appropriate local advice on conditions and care.
Competing Interest Statement
Some of the authors are employees of/hold equity in the manufacturer of digital history taking app, the effects of which are simulated in this study (Ada Health GmbH). See author affiliations.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Ada Health GmbH.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
