MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402285681 · doi:10.2196/60491

Exploring Contactless Vital Signs Collection in Video Telehealth Visits Among Veterans Affairs Providers and Patients: Pilot Usability Study

2024· article· en· W4402285681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lynn Garvin, Eric Richardson, Leonie Heyworth, D. Keith McInnes

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQuality Enhancement Research InitiativeU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsUsabilityVeterans AffairsTelehealthContext (archaeology)TelemedicineMedicineHealth careSystem usability scaleMedical emergencyComputer scienceHeuristic evaluationHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To expand veterans' access to health care, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Connected Care explored a novel software feature called "Vitals" on its VA Video Connect telehealth platform. Vitals uses contactless, video-based, remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) through the infrared camera on veterans' smartphones (and other devices) to automatically scan their faces to provide real-time vital statistics on screen to both the provider and patient. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess VA clinical provider and veteran patient attitudes regarding the usability of Vitals. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of Vitals among VA providers and patients, collecting data in July and August 2023 at the VA Boston Healthcare System and VA San Diego Healthcare System. We conducted analyses in October 2023. In-person usability testing sessions consisted of a think-aloud procedure while using the software, a semistructured interview, and a 26-item web-based survey. RESULTS: Usability test sessions with 20 VA providers and 13 patients demonstrated that both groups found Vitals "useful" and "easy to use," and they rated its usability highly (86 and 82 points, respectively, on a 100-point scale). Regarding acceptability or willingness/intent to use, providers and patients generally expressed confidence and trust in Vitals readings, with high ratings of 90 and 85 points, respectively. Providers and patients rated Vitals highly for its feasibility and appropriateness for context (90 and 90 points, respectively). Finally, providers noted that Vitals' flexibility makes it appropriate and advantageous for implementation in a wide range of clinical contexts, particularly in specialty care. Providers believed that most clinical teams would readily integrate Vitals into their routine workflow because it saves time; delivers accurate, consistently collected vitals; and may reduce reporting errors. Providers and veterans suggested training and support materials that could improve Vitals adoption and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: While remote collection of vital readings has been described in the literature, this is one of the first accounts of testing a contactless vital signs measurement tool among providers and patients. If ongoing initiatives demonstrate accuracy in its readings, Vitals could enhance telemedicine by providing accurate and automatic reporting and recording of vitals; sending patients' vital readings (pending provider approval) directly to their electronic medical record; saving provider and patient time; and potentially reducing necessity of some home-based biometric devices. Understanding usability issues before US Food and Drug Administration approval of Vitals and its implementation could contribute to a seamless introduction of Vitals to VA providers and patients.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→