Background In the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive. Objective This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns. Methods Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis. Results A total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Conclusions Although OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83

Background Various instruments are used to measure individual self-care capability for healthy individuals, those experiencing everyday self-limiting conditions, or one or more multiple long-term conditions. Objective Identify and characterise self-care measurement tools that are designed for adults. We also sought to assess the extent to which each item of the instruments identified could be mapped to the Seven Pillars of Self-Care (7PSC) framework. Design Systematic scoping review with thematic content analysis. Methods We conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature to identify instruments that could be used to assess self-care behaviours among the general population. The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases using a variety of MeSH terms and keywords covering 1 January 1950 to 30 November 2022. Inclusion criteria included tools assessing health literacy, capability and/or performance of general health self-care practices and targeting adults. We excluded tools targeting self-care in the context of disease management only or indicated to a specific medical setting or theme. Results We identified 38 tools. Descriptive analysis highlighted a shift in the overall emphasis from rehabilitation-focused to prevention-focused tools. The intended method of administration also transitioned from observe-and-interview style methods to the utilisation of self-reporting tools. Only five tools incorporated questions relevant to 7PSC. Conclusions Self-care can play a crucial role in the prevention, management and rehabilitation of diverse conditions, especially chronic non-communicable diseases. There is a need for the development of a comprehensive measurement tool that could be used to evaluate individual self-care capacity and capability.

BACKGROUND In the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers, and particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in and use of online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the safety and accuracy of OSCs remains inconclusive so far. The triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed before pushing any further implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns. METHODS Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC and Web of Science. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between 1 January 2010 and 17 February 2022 with a quantitative assessment of triage and/or diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health professionals, and disease- or speciality-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis. RESULTS 21,284 studies were screened and 15 were included. Six studies reported on both triage and diagnostic accuracy, eight focused on triage accuracy, and one on diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic and triage accuracy varied between studies and OSCs; most studies showed suboptimal diagnostic and triage accuracy. Frequency and urgency of the condition were the main variables that affected the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy, along with specific features of the OSCs. The impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. Included studies had either a moderate or high risk of bias according to the revised tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. CONCLUSIONS While OSCs have significant potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy prior to wide scale adoption in community and healthcare settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and/or agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation.

Background Our ability to self-care can play a crucial role in the prevention, management and rehabilitation of diverse conditions, including chronic non-communicable diseases. Various tools have been developed to support the measurement of self-care capabilities of healthy individuals, those experiencing everyday self-limiting conditions, or one or more multiple long-term conditions. We sought to characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults as such a review was lacking. Objective The aim of the review was to identify and characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults. Secondary objectives were to characterise these tools in terms of their content, structure and psychometric properties. Design Scoping review with content assessment. Methods The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases using a variety of MeSH terms and keywords covering 1 January 1950 to 30 November 2022. Inclusion criteria included tools assessing health literacy, capability and/or performance of general health self-care practices and targeting adults. We excluded tools targeting self-care in the context of disease management only or indicated to a specific medical setting or theme. We used the Seven Pillars of Self-Care framework to inform the qualitative content assessment of each tool. Results We screened 26,304 reports to identify 38 relevant tools which were described in 42 primary reference studies. Descriptive analysis highlighted a temporal shift in the overall emphasis from rehabilitation-focused to prevention-focused tools. The intended method of administration also transitioned from observe-and-interview style methods to the utilisation of self-reporting tools. Only five tools incorporated questions relevant to the seven pillars of self-care. Conclusions Various tools exist to measure individual self-care capability, but few consider assessing capability against all seven pillars of self-care. There is a need to develop a comprehensive, validated tool and easily accessible tool to measure individual self-care capability including the assessment of a wide range of self-care practices. Such a tool could be used to inform targeted health and social care interventions.