Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42348495›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Evaluating the use of drones within medical logistics: A patient-focused qualitative evaluation.

Colin B Shore, Ashley Shepherd, Frances Hines, Hazel Dempsey, Karen Bell, Dylan Powell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Colin B ShoreSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Ashley ShepherdFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Frances HinesNHS Highland RD&I Division, Inverness, United Kingdom.
Hazel DempseyNHS Grampian Innovation Hub, PIP Directorate, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen United Kingdom.
Karen BellNHS Grampian Innovation Hub, PIP Directorate, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3485-9763
Dylan PowellFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1233-5468

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drone technologies offer significant promise for enhancing medical logistics, particularly in rural and remote areas. However, despite several pilot trials across the UK, there remains a lack of evidence regarding patient perceptions of drone integration in routine healthcare delivery. This study aimed to explore patient perspectives on the use of drones in medical logistics, with a focus on cost, safety, and impact on quality of life amongst three medical areas (chemotherapy, lab diagnostics and blood products). A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and small focus groups was conducted with 26 participants from five Scottish health boards. Participants were recruited via NHS engagement leads, community networks, and snowball sampling. Data were collected via Microsoft Teams and analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Eight key themes emerged: Acceptance, Knowledge of drones, Potential use within the NHS, Potential impact, Concerns, Public perception, Support networks, and Future innovation. Participants expressed cautious optimism, highlighting potential benefits including improved access in rural areas, reduced travel burdens, and environmental gains. Concerns included technical reliability, regulatory complexity, data privacy, and the risk of increasing health inequities. Drones were viewed by patients as a promising complement to existing medical logistics, especially for emergency and rural applications. However, successful integration demands transparent communication, co-design with stakeholders, robust regulatory planning, and sustainable funding models to ensure equitable and safe implementation.

Identifiers

PMID42348495
PMCPMC13298904

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.