Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40532187›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Patient and Public Perceptions of 3D Technologies (Models and Images) to Facilitate Health Care Consultations: Exploratory, Mixed Methods Study.

Harleen Kaur Rai, Morven Miller, Steve Leung, Euan Macleod, Marilyn Lennon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Harleen Kaur RaiDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom, 44 0141 548 4303.ORCID 0000-0002-8121-6094
Morven MillerDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom, 44 0141 548 4303.ORCID 0000-0003-2368-5682
Steve LeungUrology Department, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8366-2880
Euan MacleodDirectorate for Strategic Planning and Transformation, Dumfries and Galloway NHS, Dumfries, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-4758-6701
Marilyn LennonDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom, 44 0141 548 4303.ORCID 0000-0003-3271-2400

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 3D technology, including models and images, can facilitate health care consultations by promoting a better understanding of information by patients and shared decision-making. However, little is yet known about the general public's perspectives about the acceptability of such innovative technology and how it can best be adopted into routine health care consultations. There is a need to explore both public and patient perceptions to avoid the risk of implementing 3D technologies that may not be acceptable or fit-for-purpose. Objective: This paper aimed to explore the patient and public perceptions of the use of 3D technology during health care consultations. Methods: This study adopted a citizen science approach using mixed methods to conduct (1) a short web-based survey with members of the public to gather a wide range of opinions regarding the use of various technologies for health care consultations; (2) a longer web-based survey to explore perceived barriers and opportunities people report specifically on the use of 3D technology; and (3) telephone interviews with patients who recently used 3D technology as part of their health care consultations. Results: A total of 211 participants completed the short survey, of which 25 went on to complete the longer survey. While members of the public were familiar with using various types of technologies during remote consultations, most participants did not have experience with using 3D technology. However, people reported that they could see the potential benefits of such technology to facilitate health care consultations. They expressed positive perceptions toward how this might assist in comprehension of a diagnosis and discussion of alternative treatment plans. They also mentioned potential benefits in relation to communication and shared decision-making either with their health care provider or with their friends and family. These potential benefits were confirmed through telephone interviews with 4 patients who also stressed potential barriers such as emotional distress caused by an overload of information as important considerations for wider implementation. Overall, there was a strong interest and willingness to use 3D technology in future health care consultations. Conclusions: The use of 3D technology in health care settings is now an option, but there is little research to date on how patients and the wider public might benefit from this. This mixed methods study has shown that people are accepting of 3D technology being used in health care consultations and that there might be real benefits to the patient. These include improved individual and shared decision-making around their treatment through the technology, making disease and treatment options easier to understand for patients. Since 3D technology can still be expensive, the benefits to the patient and health care professionals need to be captured and quantified in terms of reduced travel, efficient use of time, and overall better quality of care and clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalPublic OpinionReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult3D technologyacceptabilitycitizen scienceconsultationshealth carehealth care consultationsinformationinnovative technologymixed methods studypublic and patient involvementpublic healthpublic perceptionsqualitative studyshared decision-makingtelephone interviewsweb-based surveywillingness

Identifiers

PMID40532187
PMCPMC12192911

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.