R2Play development: Fostering user-driven technology that supports return-to-play decision-making following pediatric concussion.
Danielle DuPlessis, Emily Lam, Fanny Hotze and 9 others
PMID 36545131WHAT IT FOUND
Clinicians rated the new R2Play return-to-play interface as easy to use, scoring 81% on a usability test.
Five testers navigated the system without getting stuck, though some initially missed buttons. The tool is a prototype and not yet proven to help patients.
Key findings
01The clinician interface received a System Usability Scale score of 81%, which places it in the 'good' to 'excellent' range.
02During testing, no clinician made an unrecoverable error that terminated the assessment, though some made recoverable errors like clicking inactive screen areas.
03The system is an early prototype that has not yet been validated for clinical decision-making or tested with patients.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not test the system with patients or healthy athletes, only the software interface with clinicians. The sample sizes were very small: 10 people for the initial interviews and 5 for the usability test. Youth athletes were not involved in the design process, so their perspective on whether the task is 'fun' or 'sport-like' is missing. The tool has not been validated against existing return-to-play criteria, so its ability to predict safe return is unknown.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high usability score as evidence that R2Play accurately assesses concussion recovery or predicts safe return to play. The study only tested whether clinicians could navigate the software interface; it did not test the tool's clinical validity or its performance with actual patients.