Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37725550›Full record

ArticleJMIRx med2021

Technologies to Support Assessment of Movement During Video Consultations: Exploratory Study.

Ray B Jones, Suzanne Hubble, Lloyd Taylor, Hilary Gunn, Angela Logan, Tim Rowland, Hannah Bradwell, Luke J Connolly, Kim Algie, Krithika Anil and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIRx med, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ray B JonesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-3421
Suzanne HubbleSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9829-5617
Lloyd TaylorCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3800-9724
Hilary GunnSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0149-5477
Angela LoganSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8776-1114
Tim RowlandRoyal Cornwall Hospital Trust, Truro, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-5565
Hannah BradwellCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-1069
Luke J ConnollySchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4471-756X
Kim AlgieSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7866-4825
Krithika AnilSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8027-1665
Bradley HallidaySchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1296-108X
Sandra HoustonLiskeard Community Hospital, Liskeard, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7809-5765
Rachel DennettSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0400-0502
Sarah ChatfieldMount Gould Hospital, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6529-4893
Sarah BuckinghamSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2215-5516
Jennifer FreemanSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-9758
University of Plymouth · GBLiskeard Community Hospital · GBMount Gould Hospital · GBRoyal Cornwall Hospital Trust · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V021060/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding and assessing patients' body movements is essential for physical rehabilitation but is challenging in video consultations, as clinicians are frequently unable to see the whole patient or observe the patient as they perform specific movements.

objectiveThe objective of this exploratory study was to assess the use of readily available technologies that would enable remote assessment of patient movement as part of a video consultation.

methodsWe reviewed the literature and available technologies and chose four technologies (Kubi and Pivo desktop robots, Facebook Portal TV, wide-angle webcam), in addition to help from a friend or a simple mobile phone holder, to assist video consultations. We used 5 standard assessments (sit-to-stand, timed "Up & Go," Berg Balance Test, ankle range of motion, shoulder range of motion) as the "challenge" for the technology. We developed an evaluation framework of 6 items: efficacy, cost, delivery, patient setup, clinician training and guidance, and safety. The coauthors, including 10 physiotherapists, then took the roles of clinician and patient to explore 7 combinations of 5 technologies. Subsequently, we applied our findings to hypothetical patients based on the researchers' family members and clinical experience.

resultsKubi, which allowed the clinician to remotely control the patient's device, was useful for repositioning the tablet camera to gain a better view of the patient's body parts but not for tracking movement. Facebook Portal TV was useful, but only for upper body movement, as it functions based on face tracking. Both Pivo, with automated full body tracking using a mobile phone, and the wide-angle webcam for a laptop or desktop computer show promise. Simple solutions such as having a friend operate a mobile phone and use of a mobile phone holder also have potential. The setup of these technologies will require better instructions than are currently available from suppliers, and successful use will depend on the technology readiness of patients and, to some degree, of clinicians.

conclusionsTechnologies that may enable clinicians to assess movement remotely as part of video consultations depend on the interplay of technology readiness, the patient's clinical conditions, and social support. The most promising off-the-shelf approaches seem to be use of wide-angle webcams, Pivo, help from a friend, or a simple mobile phone holder. Collaborative work between patients and clinicians is needed to develop and trial technological solutions to support video consultations assessing movement.

Indexed as

assessmentassessment of movementassistive technologydesktop robotseHealthevaluationframeworkphysical healthrehabilitationremoterobotstechnologytelehealthtele-rehabilitationvideo-consultationswebcamwide-angle webcams

Identifiers

PMID37725550
PMCPMC10414296
OpenAlexW3168864574

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.