Automated Digital Triage in Primary Care compared to triage through a telephone reception managed by nurses

Reading time less than 1 minute
This page contains 1 evidence gap
  1. Automated Digital Triage in Primary Care compared to triage through a telephone reception managed by nurses
Population:
Patients who seek contact with primary care
Intervention:
Digital triage through interactive software programs based on artificial intelligence (AI) (involves both an assessment of reported symptoms and assignment to various healthcare supplies/levels of care)
Comparison:
Triage through a telephone reception managed by nurses
Outcomes:
Conformity in referral to care, availability, compliance to the referred level of care, patient safety

What evidence is needed?

More primary research is needed.

What evidence is available?

Reliable systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

En kartläggning kring automatiserad digital triagering i primärvården och studier baserade på faktiska patienter [Automated Digital Triage in Primary Care – a Systematic Review]. Örebro: HTA-enheten CAMTÖ; 2020.  HTA-rapport 2021:42. More about the systematic review

Reliable, but not updated, systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

None identified

Registration number:
Published:
Research conducted after publication could potentially change the nature of the evidence.
To top

Evidence gap identifies methods or practices for which no conclusive systematic review of benefits and harms has been published. Gaps in scientific evidence appear on the SBU website to help researchers and granting agencies identify areas that are in need of research or systematic review. An additional objective is to offer healthcare and social service providers a basis for setting priorities.