ArticlePloS one2022
How do people think about the implementation of speech and video recognition technology in emergency medical practice?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, speech and video information recognition technology (SVRT) has developed rapidly. Introducing SVRT into the emergency medical practice process may lead to improvements in health care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of acceptance of SVRT among patients, caregivers and emergency medical staff.
methodsStructured questionnaires were developed for the patient or caregiver group and the emergency medical staff group. The survey was performed in one tertiary academic hospital emergency department. Questions were optimized for each specific group, and responses were provided mostly using Likert 5-scales. Additional multivariable logistic regression analyses for the whole cohort and subgroups were conducted to calculate odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) to examine the association between individual characteristics and SVRT acceptance.
resultsOf 264 participants, respondents demonstrated a positive attitude and acceptance toward SVRT and artificial intelligence (AI) in future; 179 (67.8%) for video recordings, and 190 (72.0%) for speech recordings. A multivariable logistic regression model revealed that several factors were associated with acceptance of SVRT in emergency medical practice: belief in health care improvement by signal analysis technology (OR, 95% CIs: 2.48 (1.15-5.42)) and AI (OR, 95% CIs: 1.70 (0.91-3.17)), reliability of AI application in emergency medicine (OR, 95% CIs: 2.36 (1.28-4.35)) and the security of personal information (OR, 95% CIs: 1.98 (1.10-3.63)).
conclusionA high level of acceptance toward SVRT has been shown in patients or caregivers, and it also appears to be associated with positive attitudes toward new technology, AI and security of personal information.
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.