ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025
Through the lens: A qualitative exploration of nurses' experiences of smart glasses in urgent care.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Enabled Smart Glasses for Active Aging: Scoping Review.JMIR aging · 2026Review
- A systematic literature review on integrating AI-powered smart glasses into digital health management for proactive healthcare solutions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A narrative review of advancing medical education through technology: the role of smart glasses in situated learning.BMC medical education · 2025Review
- Through the lens: A qualitative exploration of nurses' experiences of smart glasses in urgent care.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Smart Glasses with Augmented Reality Workflow; A Modern Tool for Triage in Mass Casualty Incidents.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
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
aimTo investigate the real-world experiences of nurses' using smart glasses to triage patients in an urgent care centre.
designA parallel convergent mixed-method design.
methodsWe collected data through twelve in-depth interviews with nurses using the device and a survey. Recruitment continued until no new themes emerged. We coded the data using a deductive-thematic approach. Qualitative and survey data were coded and then mapped to the most dominant dimension of the sociotechnical framework. Both the qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated within each dimension of the framework to gain a comprehensive understanding of user experiences.
resultsOverall, nurses were satisfied with using smart glasses in urgent care and would recommend them to others. Nurses rated the device highly on ease of use, facilitation of training and development, nursing empowerment and communication. Qualitatively, nurses generally felt the device improved workflows and saved staff time. Conversely, technological challenges limited its use, and users questioned its sustainability if inadequate staffing could not be resolved.
conclusionSmart glasses enhanced urgent care practices by improving workflows, fostering staff communication, and empowering healthcare professionals, notably providing development opportunities for nurses. While smart glasses offered transformative benefits in the urgent care setting, challenges, including technological constraints and insufficient organisational support, were barriers to sustained integration. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These real-world insights encompass both the benefits and challenges of smart glass utilisation in the context of urgent care. The findings will help inform greater workflow optimisation and future technological developments. Moreover, by sharing these experiences, other healthcare institutions looking to implement smart glass technology can learn from the successes and barriers encountered, facilitating smoother adoption, and maximising the potential benefits for patient care. REPORTING
methodCOREQ checklist (consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.