4.1 Article

Dr. Google's Advice on First Aid: Evaluation of the Search Engine's Question-Answering System Responses to Queries Seeking Help in Health Emergencies

期刊

PREHOSPITAL AND DISASTER MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 345-351

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23000511

关键词

bystander; digital technology; emergencies; first aid; internet; laypeople; online; public; search engine; telemedicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to evaluate the quality of advice on first aid provided by a web search engine's question-answering system. The results showed that the responses generated by the search engine often omitted evidence-based instructions on first aid and provided advice that was noncompliant with guidelines or inadequate for untrained individuals, posing risks to the victims.
Introduction:The ever-growing penetration of internet and mobile technologies into society suggests that people will increasingly use web searches to seek health-related information, including advice on first aid in medical emergencies. When a bystander is incompetent in first aid and has no immediate support from Emergency Medical Services (EMS), as it happens in low-resource settings or in disasters, instructions found online could be the sole driver for administering first aid before arrival of professional help. Study Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate quality of advice on first aid generated by a web search engine's question-answering system (QAS) in response to search queries concerning provision of help in common health emergencies. Methods:In December 2022-January 2023, an English-language search was carried out in Google with ten queries based on the keyword combinations (what to do OR how to help) AND (bleeding OR chest pain OR choking OR not breathing OR seizure). The search engine's QAS responses (up to 11 per search query) were evaluated for compliance with the International Federation of Red Cross First Aid Guidelines 2020 using the pre-developed checklists. Results:Out of 98 QAS items generated by Google, 67.3% (n = 66) were excluded, mainly because the QAS answers did not address original queries. Eligible unique QAS responses (n = 27) showed poor coverage of the guideline-compliant instructions on first aid. Mean percentage of QAS responses providing a first aid instruction with complete adherence to the guidelines varied from 0.0 for choking to 19.5 for seizure. Only three (11.1%) QAS responses contained an explicit instruction to access EMS, while 66.7% (n = 18) included directions either contradictory to the guidelines and potentially harmful (eg, use of home remedies in chest pain) or inapplicable for an untrained person (eg, use of tourniquet in bleeding). Conclusion:Although the search engine's QAS responds to user's inquiries concerning assistance in health emergencies, the QAS-generated answers, as a rule, omit potentially life-saving evidence-based instructions on first aid and oftentimes give advices noncompliant with current guidelines or inadequate for untrained people, and thus create risks for causing harm to a victim.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据