ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Enhancing the Predictive Value of Formative Evaluation in Extended Reality Adoption: Addressing the Experience Gap.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Willingness, Challenges, and Perceptions of Patients' Family Members and Health Care Providers Regarding Virtual Reality-Based Preoperative Intensive Care Unit Visits for Elective Surgery: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Extended Reality (MCDA-XR) Governance Framework for Health Care Adoption: Mixed Methods Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Formative evaluation is widely used in implementation science to anticipate barriers and facilitators prior to the deployment of health technologies, typically relying on stakeholders' reported beliefs collected before real-world exposure. This approach has proven informative for many digital health tools; however, its application to immersive and embodied technologies such as extended reality (XR) warrants closer scrutiny. Most XR interventions in health care are delivered through head-mounted displays, which depend on spatial perception and sensorimotor engagement. Several implementation-relevant properties, including comfort, perceived intrusiveness, safety, and workflow disruption, often become apparent only through direct interaction. At the same time, large segments of the health care workforce remain XR-naive, such that preuse judgments are frequently shaped by anticipation rather than experience. Drawing on concepts from implementation science, grounded cognition, and human-computer interaction, this Viewpoint examines a plausible interpretive problem in XR adoption and argues that perception-based formative evaluation, when applied through frameworks developed for screen-based technologies, may misclassify barriers and facilitators. Rather than questioning formative evaluation as a methodological approach, we identify a boundary condition for its interpretability in experience-dependent technologies and propose a pragmatic refinement: incorporating brief experiential familiarization before eliciting stakeholder perceptions to strengthen early-stage assessment and improve alignment with real-world implementation decisions.
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.