ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Aligning visual prosthetic development with implantee needs.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Visual prosthetics are a promising assistive technology for vision loss, yet research often overlooks the human aspects of this technology. While previous studies focus on the perceptual experiences or attitudes of implant recipients (implantees) , a systematic account of how current implants are being used in everyday life is still lacking. Methods: We interviewed six recipients of the most widely used visual implants (Argus II and Orion) and six leading researchers in the field. Through thematic analyses, we explored the daily usage of these implants by implantees and compared their responses to the expectations of researchers. We also sought implantees' input on desired features for future versions, aiming to inform the development of the next generation of implants. Results: Although implants are designed to facilitate various daily activities, we found that implantees use them less frequently than researchers expect. This discrepancy primarily stems from issues with usability and reliability, with implantees finding alternative methods to accomplish tasks, reducing the need to rely on the implant. For future implants, implantees emphasized the desire for improved vision, smart integration, and increased independence. Conclusions: Our study reveals a significant gap between researcher expectations and implantee experiences with visual prostheses. Although limited by access to a small population of implantees, this study highlights the importance of focusing future research on usability and real-world applications. Translational relevance: This retrospective qualitative study advocates for a better alignment between technology development and implantee needs to enhance clinical relevance and practical utility of visual prosthetics.
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.