Perceptions About Augmented Reality in Remote Medical Care: Interview Study of Emergency Telemedicine Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have increasingly appeared in the medical literature in the past decade, with AR recently being studied for its potential role in remote health care delivery and communication. Recent literature describes AR's implementation in real-time telemedicine contexts across multiple specialties and settings, with remote emergency services in particular using AR to enhance disaster support and simulation education. Despite the introduction of AR in the medical literature and its potential to shape the future of remote medical services, studies have yet to investigate the perspectives of telemedicine providers regarding this novel technology. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the applications and challenges of AR in telemedicine anticipated by emergency medicine providers with a range of experiences in using telemedicine and AR or VR technology. METHODS: Across 10 academic medical institutions, 21 emergency medicine providers with variable exposures to telemedicine and AR or VR technology were recruited for semistructured interviews via snowball sampling. The interview questions focused on various potential uses of AR, anticipated obstacles that prevent its implementation in the telemedicine area, and how providers and patients might respond to its introduction. We included video demonstrations of a prototype using AR during the interviews to elicit more informed and complete insights regarding AR's potential in remote health care. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via thematic coding. RESULTS: Our study identified 2 major areas of use for AR in telemedicine. First, AR is perceived to facilitate information gathering by enhancing observational tasks such as visual examination and granting simultaneous access to data and remote experts. Second, AR is anticipated to supplement distance learning of both minor and major procedures and nonprocedural skills such as cue recognition and empathy for patients and trainees. AR may also supplement long-distance education programs and thereby support less specialized medical facilities. However, the addition of AR may exacerbate the preexisting financial, structural, and literacy barriers to telemedicine. Providers seek value demonstrated by extensive research on the clinical outcome, satisfaction, and financial benefits of AR. They also seek institutional support and early training before adopting novel tools such as AR. Although an overall mixed reception is anticipated, consumer adoption and awareness are key components in AR's adoption. CONCLUSIONS: AR has the potential to enhance the ability to gather observational and medical information, which would serve a diverse set of applications in remote health care delivery and education. However, AR faces obstacles similar to those faced by the current telemedicine technology, such as lack of access, infrastructure, and familiarity. This paper discusses the potential areas of investigation that would inform future studies and approaches to implementing AR in telemedicine.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".