Accepted for/Published in: JMIRx Med
Date Submitted: May 6, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: May 6, 2021 - Jul 1, 2021
Date Accepted: Jun 13, 2021
Date Submitted to PubMed: Sep 19, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Technologies to support video-consultations assessing movement: exploratory study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Understanding and assessing patients’ body movements is essential for physical rehabilitation but is challenging in video-consultations as clinicians are frequently unable to see the whole patient or see the patient performing specific movements.
Objective:
The objective of this exploratory study was to assess readily available technologies that would enable remote assessment of patient movement as part of a video-consultation.
Methods:
We reviewed literature and available technologies and chose four technologies (Kubi and Pivo desktop robots, Facebook TV portal, wide-angle webcam) additional to help from a friend or a simple mobile phone holder, to assist video-consultations. Five standard assessments (Sit to Stand, Timed Up and Go, Berg Balance Test, ankle range of motion, shoulder range of motion) were used as the ‘challenge’ for the technology. We developed an evaluation framework of six items: efficacy, cost, delivery, patient set-up, clinician training and guidance, and safety. Co-authors, including 10 physiotherapists, then took the roles of clinician and patient to explore seven combinations of five technologies. Subsequently we applied our findings to hypothetical patients based on researchers’ family members and clinical experience.
Results:
We reviewed literature and available technologies and chose four technologies (Kubi and Pivo desktop robots, Facebook TV portal, wide-angle webcam) additional to help from a friend or a simple mobile phone holder, to assist video-consultations. Five standard assessments (Sit to Stand, Timed Up and Go, Berg Balance Test, ankle range of motion, shoulder range of motion) were used as the ‘challenge’ for the technology. We developed an evaluation framework of six items: efficacy, cost, delivery, patient set-up, clinician training and guidance, and safety. Co-authors, including 10 physiotherapists, then took the roles of clinician and patient to explore seven combinations of five technologies. Subsequently we applied our findings to hypothetical patients based on researchers’ family members and clinical experience.
Conclusions:
We reviewed literature and available technologies and chose four technologies (Kubi and Pivo desktop robots, Facebook TV portal, wide-angle webcam) additional to help from a friend or a simple mobile phone holder, to assist video-consultations. Five standard assessments (Sit to Stand, Timed Up and Go, Berg Balance Test, ankle range of motion, shoulder range of motion) were used as the ‘challenge’ for the technology. We developed an evaluation framework of six items: efficacy, cost, delivery, patient set-up, clinician training and guidance, and safety. Co-authors, including 10 physiotherapists, then took the roles of clinician and patient to explore seven combinations of five technologies. Subsequently we applied our findings to hypothetical patients based on researchers’ family members and clinical experience. Clinical Trial: Not Applicable
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.