Key result
An augmented reality discharge app fails to improve patient-reported experience measures over standard care.
Why the study?
Digital health tools are increasingly used, but evidence regarding their impact on patient experience remains limited.
Does a mobile application with augmented reality improve perceived quality of care in patients hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions?
RCT (n=242)
1:1
Does a mobile application with augmented reality improve perceived quality of care in patients hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions?
The provision of an augmented reality application at hospital discharge did not significantly improve patient-reported experience measures in cardiovascular patients.
Augmented reality discharge apps do not improve patient experience; challenges assumptions about digital tools enhancing post-discharge care quality.
Introduction The use of digital health tools is becoming increasingly common. However, evidence regarding their impact on patient experience remains limited. The objective of this study was to assess whether an augmented reality application, provided at the Cardiology Department at discharge, improves perceived quality as measured by Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs). Methods A randomized clinical trial (1:1) was conducted in patients hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions. The intervention group received a mobile application with augmented reality explaining their disease and post-discharge care, while the control group did not receive it. Patient experience was assessed through a structured questionnaire at discharge, evaluating the doctor-patient relationship, physician accessibility, clarity of discharge information, and overall rating of the Cardiology service. Responses to the first set of questions were scored on a numerical scale: 'Excellent' = 5, 'Good' = 4, 'Fair' = 3, 'Poor' = 2, and 'Very poor' = 1. The last question assessed overall satisfaction with the Cardiology service on a scale from 1 to 10. Results A total of 242 patients were included (125 in the intervention group, 117 in the control group). No significant differences were found in any of the rating questions between the two groups (p = n/s.) (Table 1). In terms of response percentages: -84% of patients in the intervention group rated the staff as "always available and accessible," compared to 83.8% in the control group. -The doctor-patient relationship was rated as "excellent" by 71.2% of patients in the intervention group and 63.2% in the control group. -Regarding the question about whether they had received clear instructions about their medications at discharge, 92.3% of the control group responded "Yes, very clear," compared to 92.8% of the intervention group that received the application (no significant differences). Conclusions The use of an augmented reality application after hospital discharge did not result in significant differences in the perception of the doctor-patient relationship, healthcare staff accessibility, or the likelihood of recommending the center. These findings highlight the need for further randomized clinical trials to validate the effectiveness of digital health tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coronel et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in cardiovascular conditions (n=242). Augmented reality application vs. No application was evaluated on Perceived quality as measured by Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) (p=n/s). An augmented reality application provided at discharge did not significantly improve patient-reported experience measures compared to standard care in patients with cardiovascular conditions (p=n/s).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: