Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30537934›Full record

ArticleBMC anesthesiology2018

User perceptions of avatar-based patient monitoring: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

David W Tscholl, Mona Weiss, Lucas Handschin, Donat R Spahn, Christoph B Nöthiger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

David W TschollInstitute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. david.tscholl@usz.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-3677-3705
Mona WeissLeipzig University, Städtisches Kaufhaus, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Lucas HandschinInstitute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Donat R SpahnInstitute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christoph B NöthigerInstitute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA new patient monitoring technology called Visual Patient, which transforms numerical and waveform data into a virtual model (an avatar) of the monitored patient, has been shown to improve the perception of vital signs compared to conventional patient monitoring. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions of potential future users regarding the new technology, we have analyzed the answers of two large groups of anesthetists using two different study methods.

methodsFirst, we carried out a qualitative analysis guided by the "consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research" checklist. For this analysis, we interviewed 128 anesthesiologists, asking: "Where do you see advantages in Visual Patient monitoring?" and afterward identified major and minor themes in their answers. In a second study, an online survey with 38 anesthesiologists at two different institutions, we added a quantitative part in which anesthesiologists rated statements based on the themes identified in the prior analysis on an ordinal rating scale.

resultsWe identified four high-level themes: "quick situation recognition," "intuitiveness," "unique design characteristics," and "potential future uses," and eight subthemes. The quantitative questions raised for each major theme were: 1. "The Visual Patient technology enabled me to get a quick overview of the situation." (63% of the participants agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 2. "I found the Visual Patient technology to be intuitive and easy to learn." (82% agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 3. "The visual design features of the Visual Patient technology (e.g., the avatar representation) are not helpful for patient monitoring." (11% agreed to this statement). 4. "I think the Visual Patient technology might be helpful for non-monitor experts (e.g., surgeons) in the healthcare system." (53% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed).

conclusionThis mixed method study provides evidence that the included anesthesiologists considered the new avatar-based technology to be intuitive and easy to learn and that the technology enabled them to get an overview of the situation quickly. Only a few users considered the avatar presentation to be unhelpful for patient monitoring and about half think it might be useful for non-experts.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdultAnesthetistsAttitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical TechnologyChecklistFemaleHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicSurveys and QuestionnairesVital SignsComputer-assistedDiagnosisPatient monitoringQualitative researchSituation awareness

Identifiers

PMID30537934
PMCPMC6290504

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.