Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482656›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Human drone interaction in delivery of medical supplies: A scoping review of experimental studies.

Franziska Stephan, Nicole Reinsperger, Martin Grünthal, Denny Paulicke, Patrick Jahn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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.

Franziska StephanHealth Service Research Working Group | Acute Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Medicine Halle (Saale), Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5143-8844
Nicole ReinspergerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Health Service Research/Nursing in Hospital, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1359-4808
Martin GrünthalPharmacy at the Bauhaus, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
Denny PaulickeHealth Service Research Working Group | Acute Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Medicine Halle (Saale), Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Patrick JahnHealth Service Research Working Group | Acute Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Medicine Halle (Saale), Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic, ageing populations and the increasing shortage of skilled workers pose great challenges for the delivery of supplies for people with and without care needs. The potential of drones, as unmanned air vehicles, in healthcare are huge and are discussed as an effective new way to delivery urgent medicines and medical devices, especially in rural areas. Although the advantages are obvious, perspectives of users are important particularly in the development process. Investigating human drone interaction could potentially increase usefulness and usability. The present study aims to perform a systematic scoping review on experimental studies examining the human drone interaction in deliveries of drugs and defibrillators.

methodsTwo databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL) and references of identified publications were searched without narrowing the year of publication or language. Studies that investigated the human drone interaction or medical delivery with drones in an experimental manner were included (research articles). All studies that only simulated the delivery process were excluded.

resultsThe search revealed 83 publications with four studies being included. These studies investigated the user experience of drone delivered defibrillators, but no study was identified that investigated the human drone interaction in the delivery of drugs. Three categories of human drone interaction were identified: landing, handover, and communications. Regarding landing and handover, the most important issue was the direct physical contact with the drone while regarding communications users need clearer instructions about drone´s direction, sound and look like. DISCUSSION: The identified studies used technology-driven approaches by investigating human drone interaction in already existing technologies. Users must become integral part of the whole development process of medical drone services to reduce concerns, and to improve security, usability and usefulness of the system. Human drone interaction should be developed according to the identified categories of human drone interaction by using demand- and technology-driven approaches.

Indexed as

COVID-19Unmanned Aerial DevicesDelivery of Health CareHumansPandemics

Identifiers

PMID35482656
PMCPMC9049298

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.