ArticleBMC health services research2015
Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives.
Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Healthcare workers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Professionals' Perspectives of Smart Stationary Bikes in Rehabilitation: Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2024Article
- New Hemodynamic Parameters in Peri-Operative and Critical Care-Challenges in Translation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Level of Digitalization in Germany: Results of the Diabetes Digitalization and Technology (D.U.T) Report 2020.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- A systematic scoping review of published qualitative research pertaining to the field of perioperative anesthesiology.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Article
- Living with a recalled implant: a qualitative study of patients' experiences with ASR hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Patient safety in surgery · 2021Article
- "It's All Sort of Cool and Interesting…but What Do I Do With It?" A Qualitative Study of Stroke Survivors' Perceptions of Surface Electromyography.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- "Look, Your Muscles Are Firing!": A Qualitative Study of Clinician Perspectives on the Use of Surface Electromyography in Neurorehabilitation.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Perceptions and use of technology in older people with ophthalmic conditions.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability.
methodsThe study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology.
resultsPhysicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results. DISCUSSION: Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use.
conclusionsThe integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.