Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the adoption of AI-driven symptom checkers in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate both patients' and physicians' attitudes towards these tools in Italian general practice settings, focusing on their perceived utility, user satisfaction, and potential challenges. METHODS: This feasibility study involved ten general practitioners (GPs) and patients visiting GP offices. The patients used a chatbot-based symptom checker before their medical visit and conducted anamnestic screening for COVID-19 and a medical history algorithm concerning the current medical problem. The entered data were forwarded to the GP as medical history aid. After the medical visit, both physicians and patients evaluated their respective symptoms. Additionally, physicians performed a final overall evaluation of the symptom checker after the conclusion of the practice phase. RESULTS: Most patients did not use symptom checkers. Overall, 49% of patients and 27% of physicians reported being rather or very satisfied with the symptom checker. The most frequent patient-reported reasons for satisfaction were ease of use, precise and comprehensive questions, perceived time-saving potential, and encouragement of self-reflection. Every other patient would consider at-home use of the symptom checker for the first appraisal of health problems to save time, reduce unnecessary visits, and/or as an aid for the physician. Patients' attitudes towards the symptom checker were not significantly associated with age, sex, or level of education. Most patients (75%) and physicians (84%) indicated that the symptom checker had no effect on the duration of the medical visit. Only a few participants found the use of the symptom checker to be disruptive to the medical visit or its quality. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a positive reception of the symptom checker, albeit with differing focus between patients and physicians. With the potential to be integrated further into primary care, these tools require meticulous clinical guidance to maximize their benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was not registered, as it did not include direct medical intervention on human participants.