Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29929947›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Patient Acceptance of Remote Scribing Powered by Google Glass in Outpatient Dermatology: Cross-Sectional Study.

Sandra Odenheimer, Deepika Goyal, Veena Goel Jones, Ruth Rosenblum, Lam Ho, Albert S Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Towards Wearable Augmented Reality in Healthcare: A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Head-Mounted Displays.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sandra Odenheimer *Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sunnyvale, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6219-1709
Deepika GoyalThe Valley Foundation School of Nursing, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2854-1274
Veena Goel JonesOffice of Patient Experience, Sutter Health, Sacramento, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0034-0446
Ruth RosenblumThe Valley Foundation School of Nursing, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5774-4375
Lam HoOffice of Patient Experience, Sutter Health, Sacramento, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5658-8902
Albert S ChanOffice of Patient Experience, Sutter Health, Sacramento, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4972-5569

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ubiquitous use of electronic health records (EHRs) during medical office visits using a computer monitor and keyboard can be distracting and can disrupt patient-health care provider (HCP) nonverbal eye contact cues, which are integral to effective communication. Provider use of a remote medical scribe with face-mounted technology (FMT), such as Google Glass, may preserve patient-HCP communication dynamics in health care settings by allowing providers to maintain direct eye contact with their patients while still having access to the patient's relevant EHR information. The medical scribe is able to chart patient encounters in real-time working in an offsite location, document the visit directly into EHR, and free HCP to focus only on the patient.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine patient perceptions of their interactions with an HCP who used FMT with a remote medical scribe during office visits. This includes an examination of any association between patient privacy and trust in their HCP when FMT is used in the medical office setting.

methodsFor this descriptive, cross-sectional study, a convenience sample of patients was recruited from an outpatient dermatology clinic in Northern California. Participants provided demographic data and completed a 12-item questionnaire to assess their familiarity, comfort, privacy, and perceptions following routine office visits with an HCP where FMT was used to document the clinical encounter. Data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics.

resultsOver half of the 170 study participants were female (102/170, 59.4%), 60.0% were Caucasian (102/170), 24.1% were Asian (41/170), and 88.8% were college-educated (151/170). Age ranged between 18 and 90 years (mean 50.5, SD 17.4). The majority of participants (118/170, 69.4%) were familiar with FMT, not concerned with privacy issues (132/170, 77.6%), and stated that the use of FMT did not affect their trust in their HCP (139/170, 81.8%). Moreover, participants comfortable with the use of FMT were less likely to be concerned about privacy (P<.001) and participants who trusted their HCP were less likely to be concerned about their HCP using Google Glass (P<.009). Almost one-third of them self-identified as early technology adopters (49/170, 28.8%) and 87% (148/170) preferred their HCP using FMT if it delivered better care.

conclusionsOur study findings support the patient acceptance of Google Glass use for outpatient dermatology visits. Future research should explore the use of FMT in other areas of health care and strive to include a socioeconomically diverse patient population in study samples.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDermatologyElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocial MediaYoung Adultacceptance, clinician burnout, communication, Google Glass, health care provider, patient, remote scribing, trust

Identifiers

PMID29929947
PMCPMC6035348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.