[OutOfHere]

The problem is that doctors almost always, except perhaps in the emergency department, are currently too full of themselves, and are not open to reading relevant research unless a patient like me forces it upon the doctor. Maybe they are busy but that doesn't work for the patient. Even upon such forcing of the patient sharing research, the doctor will often read only a single line from an entire paper. How do you change this culture? It doesn't serve the patient too well to get an inaccurate root cause diagnosis from the doctors as I often do. It comes upon the patient to really spend the time investigating and testing hypotheses and theories, failing which the root causes go ignored, and one ends up taking too many unnecessary or even harmful pharmaceuticals.

[amber_raza]

I hear that frustration. The reality is that the 15-minute visit model leaves zero time for 'deep dives', which leads to the friction you described.

My hope is that by reducing the time it takes to verify a paper from 20 minutes to 30 seconds, we can make it easier for providers to actually engage with the research a patient brings in. It helps prevent them from dismissing it just because they 'don't have time to read it'.

[OutOfHere]

If possible, it eventually needs to become integrated into the clinician's existing workflow, to become a core part of it. As it stands, medical practice is in the dark ages by ignoring much of research in clinical practice.

[amber_raza]

100%. The 'Alt-Tab' tax is the biggest barrier to adoption. Starting as a 'second screen' is just step one; deep integration into the workflow is the eventual north star.