No abstract

Due to the challenges and restrictions posed by COVID-19 pandemic, technology and digital solutions played an important role in the rendering of necessary healthcare services, notably in medical education and clinical care. The aim of this scoping review was to analyze and sum up the most recent developments in Virtual Reality (VR) use for therapeutic care and medical education, with a focus on training medical students and patients. We identified 3743 studies, of which 28 were ultimately selected for the review. The search strategy followed the most recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. 11 studies (39.3%) in the field of medical education assessed different domains, such as knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, self-efficacy, and empathy. 17 studies (60.7%) focused on clinical care, particularly in the areas of mental health, and rehabilitation. Among these, 13 studies also investigated user experiences and feasibility in addition to clinical outcomes. Overall, the findings of our review reported considerable improvements in terms of medical education and clinical care. VR systems were also found to be safe, engaging, and beneficial by the studies’ participants. There were huge variations in studies with respect to the study designs, VR contents, devices, evaluation methods, and treatment periods. In the future, studies may focus on creating definitive guidelines that can help in improving patient care further. Hence, there is an urgent need for researchers to collaborate with the VR industry and healthcare professionals to foster a better understanding of contents and simulation development.

The use of wearable devices (WDs) in healthcare monitoring and management has attracted increasing attention. A major problem is patients’ adherence and acceptance of WDs given that they are already experiencing a disease burden and treatment side effects. This scoping review explored the use of wrist-worn devices in the cancer population, with a special focus on adherence and clinical outcomes. Relevant articles focusing on the use of WDs in cancer care management were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from 1 January 2017 to 3 March 2022. Studies were independently screened and relevant information was extracted. We identified 752 studies, of which 38 met our inclusion criteria. Studies focused on mixed, breast, colorectal, lung, gastric, urothelial, skin, liver, and blood cancers. Adherence to WDs varied from 60% to 100%. The highest adherence was reported in the 12-week studies. Most studies focused on physical activity, sleep analysis, and heart vital signs. Of the 10 studies that described patient-reported outcomes using questionnaires and personal interviews, 8 indicated a positive correlation between the patient-reported and wearable outcomes. The definitions of the outcome measures and adherence varied across the studies. A better understanding of the intervention standards in terms of the clinical outcomes could improve adherence to wearables.

Background—Smartphones and wearable devices have become a part and parcel of the healthcare industry. The use of wearable technology has already proved its potentials in improving healthcare research, clinical work, and patient care. The real time data allow the care providers to monitor the patients’ symptoms remotely, prioritize the patients’ visits, assist in decision-making, and carry out advanced care planning. Objective—The primary objective of our study was to investigate the potential use of wearable devices as prognosis tools among patients in hospice care and palliative care, and secondary objective was to examine the association between wearable devices and clinical data in the context of patient outcomes, such as discharge and deceased, at various time intervals. Methods—We employed an observational research approach to continuously monitor the hand movements of the recruited 68 patients between December 2019 and June 2022 via actigraphy device at hospice or palliative care ward of Taipei Medical University Hospital (TMUH) in Taiwan. Results—The results revealed that the patients with higher scores in the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) tended to live at discharge, while Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) and Palliative prognostic Index (PPI) also shared the similar trend. In addition, the results also confirmed that all these evaluating tools only suggested rough rather than accurate and definite prediction. The outcomes (MBD or expired) were positively correlated with accumulated angle and spin values, i.e., the patients who survived had higher angle and spin values compared to those who died/expired. Conclusions—Outcomes had higher correlation with angle value compared to spin and ACT. The correlation value increased within the first 48 h and then began to decline. We recommend rigorous observational studies/randomized control trials with many participants for investigation in the future.

Background and Objectives: Taiwan is among the nations with the highest rates of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and Hypertension (HTN). As more cases are reported each year, there is a rise in hospital admissions for people seeking medical attention. This creates a burden on hospitals and affects the overall management and administration of the hospitals. Hence, this study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict the Length of Stay (LoS) and mortality among T2DM and HTN inpatients. Materials and Methods: Using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), this cohort study consisted of 58,618 patients, where 25,868 had T2DM, 32,750 had HTN, and 6419 had both T2DM and HTN. We analyzed the data with different machine learning models for the prediction of LoS and mortality. The evaluation was done by plotting descriptive statistical graphs, feature importance, precision-recall curve, accuracy plots, and AUC. The training and testing data were set at a ratio of 8:2 before applying ML algorithms. Results: XGBoost showed the best performance in predicting LoS (R2 0.633; RMSE 0.386; MAE 0.123), and RF resulted in a slightly lower performance (R2 0.591; RMSE 0.401; MAE 0.027). Logistic Regression (LoR) performed the best in predicting mortality (CV Score 0.9779; Test Score 0.9728; Precision 0.9432; Recall 0.9786; AUC 0.97 and AUPR 0.93), closely followed by Ridge Classifier (CV Score 0.9736; Test Score 0.9692; Precision 0.9312; Recall 0.9463; AUC 0.94 and AUPR 0.89). Conclusions: We developed a robust prediction model for LoS and mortality of T2DM and HTN inpatients. Linear Regression showed the best performance for LoS, and Logistic Regression performed the best in predicting mortality. The results showed that ML algorithms can not only help healthcare professionals in data-driven decision-making but can also facilitate early intervention and resource planning.