Patient Perceptions of Wearable Face-Mounted Computing Technology and the Effect on the DoctorPatient RelationshipFunding Dr. Prochaska received funding the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K12 Patient Centered Outcome Research Award). Dr. Press received funding from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH K23HL1181510). Dr. Meltzer received funding from the National Institute of Aging (K24 AG031326–01) and from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (2UL1TR000430–06).
14 June 2016
accepted: 26 August 2016
18 December 2017 (online)
Background Wearable face-mounted computers such as Google Glass™, Microsoft HoloLens™, and Oculus’ Rift®, are increasingly being tested in hospital care. These devices challenge social etiquette, raise privacy issues, and may disrupt the intimacy of the doctor patient relationship. We aimed to determine patients’ perception of and their privacy concerns with an archetype of wearable face-mounted computer devices, Google Glass.
Methods Hospitalized inpatients were asked about their familiarity with Glass, how comfortable they would be and if they would be concerned about privacy if their physician wore Glass, if the use of Glass would affect their trust in their physician, and if they would want their physician to wear Glass if it improved their care.
Results Most (73%) respondents were unfamiliar with Glass, though 64% would be comfortable if their doctor wore Glass. Under half (46%) of respondents were concerned about privacy with the use of Glass. Seventy-six percent (76%) of respondents stated their doctor wearing Glass would not affect their trust in their doctor. Patients concerned about their privacy were less likely to trust their doctor if their doctor wore Glass (17% vs. 0%, p<0.01). Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondents would want their doctor to wear Glass if it improved their care.
Conclusion Most patients appear open to and would want their doctor to use face-mounted wearable computers such as Glass, even when unfamiliar with this technology. While some patients expressed concerns about privacy, patients were much less concerned about wearable technologies affecting the trust they have in their physician.
Citation: Prochaska MT, Press VG, Meltzer DO, Arora VM. Patient perceptions of wearable face-mounted computing technology and the effect on the doctor-patient relationship.
- 1 Case Western Reserve, Cleveland Clinic Collaborate with Microsoft on Earth-Shattering Mixed-Reality Technology for Education. [cited 2015 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.case.edu/hololens/
- 2 Developers will get their hands on Microsoft’s HoloLens within a year. PCWorld. 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 5]. Available from: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2955665/windows/developers-will-get-their-hands-on-microsofts-hololens-within-a-year.html
- 3 Barr A. Google Quietly Distributes New Version of Glass Aimed at Workplaces. Wall Street Journal. 2015 Jul 31 [cited 2015 Aug 5]; Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-quietly-distributes-new-version-of-glass-aimed-at-workplaces-1438283319
- 4 Technology in Academic Medicine: Medicine Takes a Closer Look at Google Glass – April 2014 – AAMC Reporter – Newsroom – AAMC. [cited 2015 Jan 13]. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april2014/378176/technology.html
- 5 How This Google Glass Startup Is Saving Doctors Time. Entrepreneur. [cited 2015 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239183
- 6 Stewart J, Billinghurst M. A wearable navigation display can improve attentiveness to the surgical field. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2016; 11 (06) 1193-1200.
- 7 Gupta S, Boehme J, Manser K, Dewar J, Miller A, Siddiqui G, Schwaitzberg SD. Does Wearable Medical Technology With Video Recording Capability Add Value to On-Call Surgical Evaluations?. Surg Innov. 2016 Jun 22;.
- 8 Emergency providers see big potential for Google Glass. ED Manag Mon Update Emerg Dep Manag 2014; 26 (05) 55-58.
- 9 Tully J, Dameff C, Kaib S, Moffitt M. Recording Medical Students’ Encounters With Standardized Patients Using Google Glass: Providing End-of-Life Clinical Education. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2014 Dec 30;
- 10 Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kübler J. Google Glass in pediatric surgery: An exploratory study. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (04) 281-289.
- 11 Zhang Z, Pei J, Wang D, Gan Q, Ye J, Yue J, Wang B, Povoski SP, Martin Jr EW, Hitchcock CL, Yilmza A, Tweedle MF, Shao P, Xu RX. A Wearable Goggle Navigation System for Dual-Mode Optical and Ultrasound Localization of Suspicious Lesions: Validation Studies Using Tissue-Simulating Phantoms and an Ex Vivo Human Breast Tissue Model. PloS One 2016; 11 (07) e0157854.
- 12 Zahl DA, Schrader SM, Edwards PC. Student perspectives on using egocentric video recorded by smart glasses to assess communicative and clinical skills with standardised patients. Eur J Dent Educ Off J Assoc Dent Educ Eur. 2016 Jul 6;.
- 13 Vaughn J, Lister M, Shaw RJ. Piloting Augmented Reality Technology to Enhance Realism in Clinical Simulation. Comput Inform Nurs CIN. 2016 Jun 2;.
- 14 Gross A. What’s the Problem with Google Glass?. The New Yorker. 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/whats-the-problem-with-google-glass
- 15 Meltzer D, Manning WG, Morrison J, Shah MN, Jin L, Guth T, Levinson W. Effects of Physician Experience on Costs and Outcomes on an Academic General Medicine Service: Results of a Trial of Hospitalists. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137 (11) 866-874.