MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214660676 · doi:10.2196/30883

Applications and User Perceptions of Smart Glasses in Emergency Medical Services: Semistructured Interview Study

2022· article· en· W4214660676 on OpenAlex
Zhan Zhang, Karen Joy, Richard Harris, Mustafa Ozkaynak, Kathleen Adelgais, Kevin G. Munjal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDocumentationWorkflowEmergency medical servicesWork (physics)PerceptionMedical emergencyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smart glasses have been gaining momentum as a novel technology because of their advantages in enabling hands-free operation and see-what-I-see remote consultation. Researchers have primarily evaluated this technology in hospital settings; however, limited research has investigated its application in prehospital operations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the potential of smart glasses to support the work practices of prehospital providers, such as emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 EMS providers recruited from 4 hospital-based EMS agencies in an urban area in the east coast region of the United States. The interview questions covered EMS workflow, challenges encountered, technology needs, and users' perceptions of smart glasses in supporting daily EMS work. During the interviews, we demonstrated a system prototype to elicit more accurate and comprehensive insights regarding smart glasses. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the open coding technique. RESULTS: We identified four potential application areas for smart glasses in EMS: enhancing teleconsultation between distributed prehospital and hospital providers, semiautomating patient data collection and documentation in real time, supporting decision-making and situation awareness, and augmenting quality assurance and training. Compared with the built-in touch pad, voice commands and hand gestures were indicated as the most preferred and suitable interaction mechanisms. EMS providers expressed positive attitudes toward using smart glasses during prehospital encounters. However, several potential barriers and user concerns need to be considered and addressed before implementing and deploying smart glasses in EMS practice. They are related to hardware limitations, human factors, reliability, workflow, interoperability, and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Smart glasses can be a suitable technological means for supporting EMS work. We conclude this paper by discussing several design considerations for realizing the full potential of this hands-free technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it