ArticleDigital health
A new reality for telehealth: A simulation-based comparison of wearable mixed reality with videoconferencing for clinician-to-clinician telehealth.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Telehealth is crucial to the provision of high-quality treatment of critically unwell patients in rural areas. Our aim was to explore the benefits and limitations of a mixed reality (MR) headset for clinician-to-clinician telehealth in a simulated rural context, in which the advising clinician directly views the treating clinician's point-of-view and uses holographic annotations to provide visual guidance in three-dimensional space. Methods: Twenty-five clinicians trialled a MR headset-the Microsoft HoloLens 2-and evaluated it against a trolley-based videoconferencing device used in current practice. Each participant trialled the devices while role-playing one of two perspectives: the Rural Clinician accessing support or the Advising Clinician providing support. Results: Advising Clinicians had higher ratings of usability and self-efficacy, and lower ratings of mental workload, when providing support via the MR headset compared to the videoconferencing trolley (ps < 0.035). However, Rural Clinicians rated the MR headset lower on usability compared to the videoconferencing trolley (p = 0.020), and rated their self-efficacy and mental workload equally when using both devices (ps > 0.253). Participants generally preferred to use the MR headset over the videoconferencing trolley. On average, scenarios took 1 minute longer to complete when using the MR headset (p < 0.001). Discussion: Wearable MR technology has the potential to improve the quality of support provided to rural clinicians; however, it may be more beneficial for those dialling in to the device (advising clinicians) rather than those wearing the device (rural clinicians). Factors that may limit its safety and efficiency are discussed.
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.