Micah T Prochaska1, Valerie G Press, David O Meltzer, Vineet M Arora. 1. Micah T. Prochaska, MD, MS, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 5000, Chicago, IL 60637, Email: mprochas@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu, Phone: 773-702-6988, Fax: 773-795-7398.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Google Glass™; Technology; doctor-patient relationship; face-mounted technology; mobile health
Authors: David Meltzer; Willard G Manning; Jeanette Morrison; Manish N Shah; Lei Jin; Todd Guth; Wendy Levinson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-12-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Oliver J Muensterer; Martin Lacher; Christoph Zoeller; Matthew Bronstein; Joachim Kübler Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Zeshu Zhang; Jing Pei; Dong Wang; Qi Gan; Jian Ye; Jian Yue; Benzhong Wang; Stephen P Povoski; Edward W Martin; Charles L Hitchcock; Alper Yilmaz; Michael F Tweedle; Pengfei Shao; Ronald X Xu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeremy B Levy; Edmund Kong; Nathan Johnson; Ashni Khetarpal; James Tomlinson; Guy Fk Martin; Anisha Tanna Journal: Future Healthc J Date: 2021-03
Authors: Sandra Odenheimer; Deepika Goyal; Veena Goel Jones; Ruth Rosenblum; Lam Ho; Albert S Chan Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Shiyao Wang; Michael Parsons; Jordan Stone-McLean; Peter Rogers; Sarah Boyd; Kristopher Hoover; Oscar Meruvia-Pastor; Minglun Gong; Andrew Smith Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Lin Lu; Honglin Wang; Pengran Liu; Rong Liu; Jiayao Zhang; Yi Xie; Songxiang Liu; Tongtong Huo; Mao Xie; Xinghuo Wu; Zhewei Ye Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-02-22