ArticleDigital health
Perceptions and feasibility of augmented reality for pressure injury care among healthcare professionals and caregivers: A qualitative study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the perceived feasibility and potential applications of an augmented reality (AR) solution to address the challenges of managing pressure injuries in non-clinical settings. Methods: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews with caregivers and healthcare professionals. Conducted from January to June 2025 at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, the study recruited 21 participants via purposive and snowball sampling until data saturation. Interview guides were grounded in the technology acceptance model. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis via NVivo. Results: Most participants (90.5%) reported prior experience with general digital health technologies such as telehealth platforms, while few had used immersive technologies (23.8%). All healthcare professionals were currently involved in pressure injury care (100.0%), and most caregivers were providing current care (83.3%), with the remaining caregivers reporting recent and relevant caregiving experience (16.7%). Thematic analysis revealed that participants' perceptions of the AR application were shaped by three main themes: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use. Key external variables, such as computer anxiety and computer efficacy, also influenced these perceptions. Conclusion: This study indicates that both healthcare professionals and caregivers perceive AR as a potentially useful tool for remote pressure injury management. Successful implementation depends on addressing key concerns related to user interface design, cost, and data privacy. These insights indicate that future development must prioritize intuitive usability and robust privacy measures to ensure successful implementation.
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.