| Id | 585 | |
| Author | Wei N.J., Dougherty B., Myers A., Badawy S.M. | |
| Title | Using google glass in surgical settings: Systematic review | |
| Reference | Wei N.J., Dougherty B., Myers A., Badawy S.M.; Using google glass in surgical settings: Systematic review ;JMIR mHealth and uHealth vol:6 issue: 3.0 page: |
|
| Link to article | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85060342035&doi=10.2196%2fmhealth.9409&partnerID=40&md5=ad78c2f582d1dbd1a5f7d9f3cf7bfd08 |
|
| Abstract | Background: In recent years, wearable devices have become increasingly attractive and the health care industry has been especially drawn to Google Glass because of its ability to serve as a head-mounted wearable device. The use of Google Glass in surgical settings is of particular interest due to the hands-free device potential to streamline workflow and maintain sterile conditions in an operating room environment. Objective: The aim is to conduct a systematic evaluation of the literature on the feasibility and acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings and to assess the potential benefits and limitations of its application. Methods: The literature was searched for articles published between January 2013 and May 2017. The search included the following databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and IEEE Xplore. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles. Original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings were included. This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Results of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Of the 520 records obtained, 31 met all predefined criteria and were included in this review. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialties. Most studies were in the United States (23/31, 74%) and all were conducted in hospital settings: 29 in adult hospitals (29/31, 94%) and two in children’s hospitals (2/31, 7%). Sample sizes of participants who wore Google Glass ranged from 1 to 40. Of the 31 studies, 25 (81%) were conducted under real-time conditions or actual clinical care settings, whereas the other six (19%) were conducted under simulated environment. Twenty-six studies were pilot or feasibility studies (84%), three were case studies (10%), and two were randomized controlled trials (6%). The majority of studies examined the potential use of Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%), whereas others observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) and postoperative settings (5/31, 16%). Google Glass was utilized as a videography and photography device (21/31, 68%), a vital sign monitor (6/31, 19%), a surgical navigation display (5/31, 16%), and as a videoconferencing tool to communicate with remote surgeons intraoperatively (5/31, 16%). Most studies reported moderate or high acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings. The main reported limitations of using Google Glass utilization were short battery life (8/31, 26%) and difficulty with hands-free features (5/31, 16%). Conclusions: There are promising feasibility and usability data of using Google Glass in surgical settings with particular benefits for surgical education and training. Despite existing technical limitations, Google Glass was generally well received and several studies in surgical settings acknowledged its potential for training, consultation, patient monitoring, and audiovisual recording. © Nancy J Wei, Bryn Dougherty, Aundria Myers, Sherif M Badawy. |
|
Results:
Smaller Distance better similarity
| Id | View | Author | Title | Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 965 |  |
Scott S.D., Brett-MacLean P., Archibald M., Hartling L. | Protocol for a systematic review of the use of narrative storytelling and visual-arts-based approaches as knowledge translation tools in healthcare. | 123.645 |
| 935 | |
Tyler N., Giles S., Daker-White G., McManus B.C., Panagioti M. | A patient and public involvement workshop using visual art and priority setting to provide patients with a voice to describe quality and safety concerns: Vitamin B12 deficiency and pernicious anaemia | 126.724 |
| 970 | |
Lankston L., Cusack P., Fremantle C., Isles C. | Visual art in hospitals: Case studies and review of the evidence | 132.711 |
| 798 | |
Gillam T. | Enhancing public mental health and wellbeing through creative arts participation | 134.611 |
| 695 | |
Bermingham A., ORourke J., Gurrin C., Collins R., Irving K., Smeaton A.F. | Automatically recommending multimedia content for use in group reminiscence therap | 136.547 |
| 596 | |
Bálint Á., Magyari J. | The use of bibliotherapy in revealing and addressing the spiritual needs of cancer patients | 137.293 |
| 780 | |
Vetter D., Barth J., Uyulmaz S., Uyulmaz S., Vonlanthen R., Belli G., Montorsi M., Bismuth H., Witt C.M., Clavien P.-A. | Effects of art on surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis | 139.16 |
| 949 | |
Awtuch A., Gȩbczyńska-Janowicz A. | Art and Healthcare - Healing Potential of Artistic Interventions in Medical Settings | 142.412 |
| 589 | |
Goyal A.A., Tur K., Mann J., Townsend W., Flanders S.A., Chopra V. | Do bedside visual tools improve patient and caregiver satisfaction? A systematic review of the literature | 144.127 |
| 720 | |
Zazulak J., Halgren C., Tan M., Grierson L.E.M. | The impact of an arts-based programme on the affective and cognitive components of empathic development | 146.88 |
MESOC has received funding
from Horizon 2020 - the EU Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) -
under Grant Agreement n°870935.
We take your privacy seriously and WE DO NOT process any personal data or any information that reveals personal identity or information that can be linked to such information to identify directly or indirectly.
2021 © CD