The study, led by Emma Brown of the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres together with colleagues at the University of Montreal, the University of Montreal Hospital Centre Research Centre, the Ecole de Technologie Superieure, and the Montreal University Institute of Geriatrics Research Centre, set out to answer a deceptively simple question: if you give people both kinds of splints, which do they prefer, and which manufacturing process do they find more workable? Rather than recruiting patients, the team trained twenty occupational therapy students to fabricate both types of orthoses themselves, then had each participant wear each device for a full 24 hours. This design allowed the researchers to capture two perspectives at once: the wearer’s comfort and satisfaction, and the fabricator’s experience of learning and performing each production method.

The technical contrast between the two approaches is central to the findings. Thermoforming, the conventional method, relies on low-temperature thermoplastic sheets that become pliable when heated in water baths and are then shaped manually around the finger. The quality of the resulting splint depends heavily on the clinician’s skill, and the process generates scrap material while demanding the patient’s presence for fitting. 3D printing, by contrast, builds the orthosis layer by layer from a digital model. Once a design exists, the device can be printed without the patient in the room, scaled or modified digitally, and reproduced on demand. Proponents argue this could improve comfort through finer geometric control and expand access to well-fitted orthoses in settings where specialized fabrication expertise is scarce.

To measure satisfaction, the researchers used QUEST 2.0, the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, a validated questionnaire widely used in rehabilitation research. Participants rated both devices after wearing them, and the team supplemented this with an in-house questionnaire probing ease of fabrication, perceived competence, quality of training, motivation, and the perceived usefulness of each technology. Practical production metrics, including material cost and the time required to make each orthosis, were also recorded. Statistical comparisons between the two device types were carried out with Student’s t-tests for parametric data and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for nonparametric data, a standard pairing for within-subject comparisons of this kind.

The results favored the printed splints on the study’s primary outcome. Overall satisfaction, captured by the total QUEST 2.0 score, reached 36.2 plus or minus 3.7 for the 3D-printed orthoses, compared with 32.0 plus or minus 5.5 for the thermoformed versions, a difference that was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.005. In practical terms, participants who had learned and used both methods consistently found the printed device the more satisfying one to wear over a full day of normal activity. Because every participant wore both orthoses, each person served as their own control, strengthening the comparison despite the modest sample size inherent to a pilot study.

The manufacturing data were equally striking. Direct labor time, the hands-on minutes a fabricator spends actually producing the device, averaged 3.4 plus or minus 1.0 minutes for the 3D-printed orthoses, against 5.8 plus or minus 2.6 minutes for the thermoformed ones, a reduction that was highly significant at p less than 0.001. While those numbers may look small on the surface, the researchers point out that in a busy clinic, where orthoses are fabricated repeatedly and therapist time is a scarce resource, shaving more than forty percent off direct fabrication labor compounds quickly. Notably, the acceptability of the fabrication method itself, how comfortable and workable participants found each process to learn and perform, came out similar for the two techniques, suggesting that the digital workflow does not impose a meaningful training burden on newcomers.

Perhaps most encouraging for advocates of digital rehabilitation tools was the enthusiasm surrounding the technology itself. Participants rated the perceived usefulness of 3D printing at 8.2 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 1.5, indicating that even in a training population encountering the method in an experimental context, the appetite for digital fabrication in clinical practice is strong. The authors argue that this combination, higher wearer satisfaction, shorter labor time, and high perceived usefulness, supports integrating digital technology into orthotic fabrication within rehabilitation services, and that the findings pave the way for properly powered clinical trials in patient populations.

The study’s limitations are those expected of a pilot. Twenty participants, all occupational therapy students rather than patients with trigger finger, wore each orthosis for only 24 hours, so the findings speak to early satisfaction and process feasibility rather than long-term clinical outcomes such as symptom resolution, skin tolerance, or device durability. Real patients vary in finger morphology, skin fragility, and adherence, and the ultimate test of 3D-printed orthoses will be whether the satisfaction advantage holds in randomized clinical comparisons against conventional care. Still, the authors are explicit that the goal of this work was to establish a foundation, and on that measure the study delivers: a reproducible protocol, validated outcome instruments, and statistically clear signals pointing toward the digital approach.

The broader implications extend beyond a single diagnosis. Trigger finger orthoses are one of many custom medical devices, from wrist splints to prosthetic sockets, now being reimagined through additive manufacturing. If digital fabrication can consistently deliver better-fitting, better-liked devices while reducing clinician labor and enabling remote or centralized production, the economics of rehabilitation care could shift meaningfully, particularly in underserved regions. Funded by a Strategic Planning Grant from the Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres and approved by the university’s Research Ethics Board, this pilot study offers an early but concrete data point that the century-old craft of hand-molding thermoplastic may soon have a serious digital rival, one that patients may actually prefer to wear.

Subject of Research: Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed finger orthoses for trigger finger treatment

Article Title: Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed orthoses for trigger finger: a pilot study

Article References: Brown, E., Dufort-Gagnon, L., Bedwani, S., Beauchemin, W., Hagemeister, N., Jean-St-Laurent, M., & Hamasaki, T. (2026). Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed orthoses for trigger finger: a pilot study. 3D Printing in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-026-00350-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s41205-026-00350-w

Keywords: 3D printing, trigger finger, orthoses, thermoforming, occupational therapy, assistive technology, rehabilitation, QUEST 2.0, additive manufacturing, pilot study, hand therapy, digital fabrication

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for the proliferation of telemedicine across various fields—including pediatrics and developmental disorders. Tele-assessment, which utilizes digital communication tools to conduct evaluations and assessments for developmental delays or disabilities, gained traction as in-person visits became challenging. This change is not merely a reaction to an unprecedented global health crisis but reflects a broader trend towards the digitization of healthcare services. For caregivers, this transition has offered both opportunities and challenges in managing their children’s developmental assessments from the comfort of their homes.

Caregivers are often the first to spot developmental concerns in their toddlers, yet accessing timely and effective assessment services can be a daunting task. The traditional approach typically involves multiple appointments, extensive waiting periods, and geographical limitations that can be particularly burdensome for families. The shift to tele-assessment seeks to alleviate some of these stressors by streamlining the assessment process through digital platforms. This method enables caregivers to engage with healthcare professionals without the logistical concerns that accompany traveling to clinics or hospitals.

According to the findings of Parikh et al., caregivers reported a mixed bag of experiences with tele-assessment. While many appreciated the convenience and flexibility it offered, some voiced concerns about the effectiveness of remote assessments compared to in-person evaluations. This discrepancy underscores an essential dialogue within the healthcare community regarding the balance between leveraging technology for efficiency and ensuring that assessments remain thorough and comprehensive. The caregivers’ insights are invaluable for perfecting these virtual interactions, enabling professionals to tailor approaches to meet families’ varied needs effectively.

The modernization brought by tele-assessment gives rise to the potential for expanded access to healthcare resources. For families residing in rural or underserved urban areas, internet-based assessments create the possibility of connecting with specialists who might otherwise be inaccessible. This democratization of access can lead to earlier identification and intervention of developmental disorders, which is critical as research consistently shows that early intervention can significantly improve long-term outcomes for children. Caregivers who have experienced these advantages often highlight newfound hope and empowerment in navigating their child’s developmental journey.

Despite its benefits, the study also highlights key barriers that need to be addressed for tele-assessment to be a viable long-term solution. Technological literacy stands out as a significant factor, as not all caregivers are equally comfortable with virtual platforms. Inadequate internet connectivity remains another formidable challenge, particularly in low-income households. For tele-assessment to reach its full potential, these systemic issues must be acknowledged, and strategies developed to bridge these gaps, ensuring equitable access to this innovative assessment method for all families.

Moreover, the study reflects on how the relationship dynamics between caregivers and healthcare professionals have shifted with tele-assessment. The virtual interaction often presents a different dynamic than in-person assessments, where body language and environmental cues play a significant role in communication. While video calls enable face-to-face interaction, the nuances of physical presence can sometimes be lost, affecting the assessment process. Healthcare professionals adapting to this burgeoning mode of interaction face the challenge of maintaining rapport and trust in a digital environment, which can influence the overall quality of assessments.

Another crucial aspect illuminated in the research is the need for training for both caregivers and healthcare providers. To optimize remote assessments, caregivers require knowledge not just of the technologies involved, but also of the expectations and processes associated with tele-assessment. Similarly, healthcare professionals need to be equipped with the skills to conduct effective assessments in a virtual space. This training will be integral to enhancing the reliability and efficacy of tele-assessment methodologies, ultimately leading to better developmental outcomes for children.

As we further explore the implications of tele-assessment for toddlers with developmental concerns, it is important to keep an eye on comprehensive approaches that include regular feedback from caregivers. Caregivers are adept at providing insights on their children’s behaviors and developmental milestones; thus, their active participation in the assessment process is crucial. Encouraging caregivers to share their experiences can foster a collaborative environment that benefits both the assessment process and the family’s overall engagement with healthcare resources.

The implementation of tele-assessment is only part of a larger conversation about the future of pediatric evaluation and intervention. As technology advances, the healthcare community must continue to evolve its practices. This includes exploring how specific tools and applications can optimize assessments and deliver tailored interventions based on the diverse needs of families. The key lies not only in embracing technology but also in ensuring that these advancements translate into tangible benefits for children and their caregivers.

Ultimately, the study conducted by Parikh, Ni, and Gangi offers a significant contribution to understanding the caregiver perspectives on tele-assessment for toddlers with developmental concerns. By shedding light on both the advantages and limitations of this approach, it paves the way for more informed discussions within the healthcare community. As tele-assessment continues to gain traction, the need for ongoing research will be pivotal in shaping best practices and ensuring that technological innovations meet the fundamental goal of enhancing child development outcomes.

The potential impact of tele-assessment on developmental evaluations represents a fascinating frontier in pediatric healthcare. The marriage of healthcare and technology marks a defining moment in our approach to child development, indicative of how systematic changes can improve access, streamline processes, and empower families. As caregivers begin to navigate this new terrain, their voices will be instrumental in guiding future research directions and clinical practices.

In summarizing the findings of this significant study, it’s clear that while tele-assessment presents exciting opportunities for redefining how we approach developmental evaluations, ongoing efforts are needed to ensure that these methods are accessible, effective, and responsive to the needs of children and their families. As we stand at this juncture, the work of researchers like Parikh and his colleagues contributes to a hopeful and transformative path forward in pediatric developmental health.

Subject of Research: Tele-assessment for toddlers with developmental concerns from a caregiver perspective.

Article Title: Caregiver Perspectives on the Use of Tele-Assessment for Toddlers with Developmental Concerns.

Article References:

Parikh, C., Ni, R., Gangi, D. et al. Caregiver Perspectives on the Use of Tele-Assessment for Toddlers with Developmental Concerns.
J Autism Dev Disord (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07016-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-025-07016-2

Keywords: Tele-assessment, toddlers, developmental concerns, caregiver perspectives, early intervention, technology in healthcare.

The study recruited a total of 263 participants fitting strict inclusion criteria via the online platform WJX, achieving an impressive response rate of 95.1% with 250 complete questionnaire responses. High response rates underscore the clinical relevance and participant engagement in the subject matter. Incomplete responses were primarily attributed to factors such as inadequate financial incentives, the time commitment required, question complexity, and occasional internet connectivity issues. Despite these challenges, the robustness of the dataset allows for high-confidence conclusions to be drawn regarding physician dialogic risk communication (PDRC) within this context.

Demographically, the study sample consisted of 40% male and 60% female participants, representing a broad adult age range from 18 to over 45 years. Notably, the dominant age cohort was 31–40 years, comprising nearly half of the respondents. The majority of participants were married, which may influence consultation dynamics given the family-centered nature of healthcare decisions in Chinese culture. Socioeconomically, over 42% of respondents earned a monthly income between RMB 5001 to RMB 10,000, indicating a middle-income bracket, while nearly all participants were employed within business sectors or public institutions. Educational attainment was high, with approximately 80% holding at least a bachelor’s degree, a factor potentially influencing digital literacy and attitudes towards online health interactions.

Crucially, over half of the participants reported engaging in online medical consultations for cancer treatment risks sometimes, while a quarter consulted online physicians quite frequently. An overwhelming majority—97.6%—considered the PDRC crucial in the context of risk communication, with 90.4% believing such dialogic communication to be prevalent in their online engagements. These findings highlight widespread recognition among patients of the importance and current use of effective risk dialogues within digital settings.

The temporal characteristics of participants’ last OMCs revealed that approximately one in seven had their last consultation within one week, while a quarter had consulted within two weeks, demonstrating that the sample involved recent, active users of online health services. Importantly, all participants confirmed that their last OMC involved discussions surrounding cancer treatment-associated risks, affirming the relevance of dialogic communication in these encounters. Participants often engaged in OMCs on behalf of family members (58.8%) and friends (30%), emphasizing the socially embedded nature of health decision-making in China.

Methodologically, the consultations predominantly occurred through text-based messaging, used by over 92% of participants, followed by the use of picture sharing, voice, and video, showcasing a multifaceted communication landscape within online platforms. Leading platforms included Baidu Doctor, Haodaifu Online, and Dingxiang Doctor — each playing integral roles in facilitating these critical risk discussions.

The crux of the research centered on assessing the perceived importance of individual items developed to measure Chinese physician dialogic risk communication (PDRC). Participants rated the relevance of eight measurement items associated with PDRC with remarkable consensus; more than 92% found each item important to varying degrees. Items 1 through 3 were particularly well-regarded, with over 93.5% indicating high importance. Despite item 8 receiving comparatively lower importance scores, nearly 88% still considered it valuable, underscoring broad acknowledgment of multiple facets of risk communication.

Importantly, statistical analysis indicated significant variation in “very important” ratings among items, with items 2, 3, and 7 receiving the highest marks. This stratification suggests particular elements within the PDRC scale resonate more profoundly with patients, potentially guiding future refinement to emphasize these critical aspects in physician-patient dialogues about cancer treatment risks.

The overall PDRC composite scores demonstrated a normal distribution, with a mean score of 31.2 out of a possible 40, reflecting generally positive perceptions of dialogic risk communication quality. Half of the consultations received scores suggesting high satisfaction, while a negligible proportion of participants assigned max scores, affirming the scale’s sensitivity without ceiling effects. Of clinical importance, participants who felt the PDRC met their expectations rated it significantly higher than those advocating for improvement, demonstrating the instrument’s discriminative validity.

Further associations were observed between PDRC scores and consultation frequency; participants engaging seldomly had lower scores compared to those consulting sometimes or often. This finding elucidates the potential impact of repeated online interactions on perceived dialogic quality, hinting at the value of ongoing patient-physician engagement in fostering effective communication and trust.

At the heart of the study’s technical rigor was the extensive validation of the Chinese PDRC instrument scale. Internal consistency was affirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.801, indicating reliable item coherence. Item-level analyses demonstrated corrected item-total correlations well above the 0.2 benchmark, confirming the scale’s homogeneity. Factor analyses, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), robustly supported a unidimensional construct underlying the eight measurement items. This one-factor model exhibited excellent fit indices such as RMR, SRMR, TLI, NFI, CFI, and IFI, all within acceptable thresholds, establishing a stable and valid measurement structure.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of 0.849 and statistically significant Bartlett’s test reinforced the adequacy of the sampling and appropriateness for factor analysis. Factor loadings ranging between 0.563 and 0.706 further support the construct validity of the instrument, ensuring its capacity to reliably capture the essence of physician dialogic risk communication in the Chinese OMC context.

Beyond psychometric solidification, the research offers profound insights into the evolving landscape of digital health communication in oncology. The development of a culturally and technologically tailored PDRC instrument addresses a critical unmet need for standardized assessment tools that accommodate the unique challenges of remote, digitally mediated consultations. Given the rising prevalence of online medical platforms in China, particularly for sensitive and complex diseases like cancer, such measurements enable clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to monitor, refine, and enhance dialogic practices critical to patient safety and informed decision-making.

This study’s findings underscore the imperative for digital health systems to embed dialogic approaches explicitly within their frameworks, ensuring that risk communication is not merely transactional but dialogic, fostering shared understanding, empathy, and patient empowerment. The robust validation of this tool paves the way for future research exploring intervention efficacy, longitudinal monitoring of communication quality, and tailoring strategies to diverse patient populations.

In summary, the unveiling of the Chinese Physician Dialogic Risk Communication instrument scale represents a significant leap forward in the quantitative assessment of online medical consultations concerning cancer treatment risks. The scale’s demonstrated reliability, validity, and nuanced psychometric properties position it as a critical asset for advancing patient-centered digital oncology care. As healthcare continues to digitize on an unprecedented scale, such innovative tools will play indispensable roles in safeguarding the quality and humanity of patient-provider interactions, ultimately improving cancer care outcomes in China and potentially beyond.

Subject of Research:
Article Title:
Article References:

Lu, W., Yorke, J., Li, Y. et al. Development and validation of a physician dialogic risk communication instrument scale in Chinese online medical consultations on cancer treatment risks.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 658 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04758-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

The study’s objective was to scrutinize the recommendations made during approximately 500 patient visits characterized by common symptoms, such as respiratory issues, urinary problems, eye concerns, dental complaints, and other health challenges. The results present compelling evidence that AI, driven by advanced machine learning algorithms, can outperform traditional healthcare practices in many instances, suggesting a potential shift in the way medical diagnostics may be approached in the near future.

In the virtual clinic setting of Cedars-Sinai Connect, the AI system was integrated to assist physicians by utilizing a sophisticated intake process. This involved automated assessments via a dedicated chat function, leveraging data extracted from the patients’ medical histories. The algorithm then generated detailed diagnostics and treatment recommendations, which included suggestions for prescriptions, necessary tests, and specialized referrals based on its analytical output. Following this initial assessment, patients engaged in a video consultation with a human physician, who ultimately made the final diagnostic and treatment decision.

The study evaluated a total of 461 online clinic visits recorded over a month during the summer of 2024. All patients in the assessment possessed symptoms that are deemed relatively non-complex, which allowed researchers to create a more standardized condition for evaluation. The recommendations provided by both the algorithm and the physicians were meticulously examined by a panel of experienced clinicians. These evaluators ranked each recommendation on a standardized four-point scale comprising categories of optimal, reasonable, inadequate, or potentially harmful.

Contrasting the two sources of recommendations led to fascinating insights. AI’s recommendations received an optimal rating in 77% of the cases, while physicians scored 67% for the same parameter. Moreover, of the recommendations rated as potentially harmful, a smaller portion belonged to the AI outputs—2.8% versus 4.6% from the physicians. In numerous instances, the evaluators noted that approximately 68% aligned their scoring between AI and physician outputs, indicating a commendable level of consistency in the treatment approach, while 21% of cases found the AI to be superior in decision-making capability, as opposed to 11% in favor of physicians.

The reasons driving these significant disparities in evaluation were analyzed and highlighted key advantages of the AI system. The algorithm’s adherence to established medical guidelines was a primary factor, especially evident in scenarios where the AI refrained from prescribing antibiotics for viral infections. Additionally, the AI demonstrated an impressive capability in extracting and utilizing pertinent information from extensive medical records—particularly recurrent incidents of similar conditions that radically influence suitable treatment strategies. Furthermore, the AI’s technology displayed heightened accuracy in identifying symptoms that could indicate grave medical conditions, thereby prompting necessary action from physicians.

However, the study also reflected on the inherent strengths of human physicians. While the algorithm boasts a rigorous analytical approach, it is generally unable to incorporate the complexities of patient behavior and nuanced clinical presentations, which are crucial for context in medical evaluations. For instance, when a patient exhibiting mild shortness of breath due to COVID-19 approaches a physician, the doctor might intuitively recognize that the ailment is likely not severe, whereas the AI may categorize it as requiring immediate referral to an emergency facility—a potential overreaction rooted in strict guideline adherence.

Professor Zeltzer emphasized the relevance of their findings, underscoring how AI exhibits the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy in various contexts. However, he also pointed to a significant limitation in the study: the actual reliance of physicians on the algorithm’s recommendations remained unexamined, as is typically the case in AI deployment. What the team measured was solely the accuracy of the algorithm’s output and its comparative effectiveness against traditional medical advice. Nevertheless, capturing the real-world application was a unique feature of this study, a stark contrast to other investigations that often rely on theoretical scenarios from academic examinations or textbook cases.

The data gathered during this study contributes meaningfully to the dialogue surrounding the application of AI in medical practice, especially regarding its optional role alongside human expertise. The conditions explored were representative of about two-thirds of the clinic’s annual cases—a statistic that may indicate the realistic integration of AI in day-to-day healthcare operations. The prospect of algorithms assisting physicians to more efficiently navigate medical decisions, highlighted through their capacity to surface pertinent information and streamline choices, is a tantalizing glimpse into the future of medical diagnostics.

As healthcare systems globally grapple with growing patient demands and complexities, studies such as this raise essential inquiries about the balance between human intuition and machine accuracy. To fully harness the potential of AI in medical settings, further exploration is required regarding the integration of these advanced technologies with practitioner judgments, ensuring that the combination leads to the most effective and safe patient care. The collaborative future of AI and human physicians paints a picture of a more efficient healthcare landscape, although many questions remain about best practices in the deployment of such technologies.

The implications of this groundbreaking research stretch beyond technological advancements; they prompt critical conversations about the evolving roles of healthcare providers amidst increasing automation. The way AI systems augment human functioning, particularly in high-stakes environments like emergency care or rapid diagnostics, represents a paradigm shift in healthcare delivery that is both fascinating and fraught with challenges.

As the healthcare community continues to embrace technology, particularly through the integration of artificial intelligence, the outcome of studies like this will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping future research agendas and healthcare policies. This study suggests that AI is not merely an adjunct to human practice but may soon take center stage in redefining how medical advice is dispensed, assessed, and acted upon.

To summarize, the research directed by Professor Dan Zeltzer signifies a momentous step toward understanding the interplay between AI and human expertise in medicine, ideally weaving these threads together to create an enlightened future for patient care.

—

Subject of Research: AI and Physician Recommendations in Medical Diagnostics
Article Title: AI Outperforms Physicians in Telehealth Diagnostics
News Publication Date: [Insert Date]
Web References: [Insert URLs if applicable]
References: Zeltzer, D. et al. (2024). Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI: 10.7326/ANNALS-24-03283
Image Credits: Richard Haldis
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Telehealth, Medical Diagnostics, Digital Health, Machine Learning, Healthcare Technology, Clinical Decision-Making