Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
J Imaging ; 8(3)2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765753


This paper presents an evaluation and comparison of interaction methods for the configuration and visualization of pervasive Augmented Reality (AR) experiences using two different platforms: desktop and mobile. AR experiences consist of the enhancement of real-world environments by superimposing additional layers of information, real-time interaction, and accurate 3D registration of virtual and real objects. Pervasive AR extends this concept through experiences that are continuous in space, being aware of and responsive to the user's context and pose. Currently, the time and technical expertise required to create such applications are the main reasons preventing its widespread use. As such, authoring tools which facilitate the development and configuration of pervasive AR experiences have become progressively more relevant. Their operation often involves the navigation of the real-world scene and the use of the AR equipment itself to add the augmented information within the environment. The proposed experimental tool makes use of 3D scans from physical environments to provide a reconstructed digital replica of such spaces for a desktop-based method, and to enable positional tracking for a mobile-based one. While the desktop platform represents a non-immersive setting, the mobile one provides continuous AR in the physical environment. Both versions can be used to place virtual content and ultimately configure an AR experience. The authoring capabilities of the different platforms were compared by conducting a user study focused on evaluating their usability. Although the AR interface was generally considered more intuitive, the desktop platform shows promise in several aspects, such as remote configuration, lower required effort, and overall better scalability.

Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(22)2021 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523978


Do leaders who build a sense of shared social identity in their teams thereby protect them from the adverse effects of workplace stress? This is a question that the present paper explores by testing the hypothesis that identity leadership contributes to stronger team identification among employees and, through this, is associated with reduced burnout. We tested this model with unique datasets from the Global Identity Leadership Development (GILD) project with participants from all inhabited continents. We compared two datasets from 2016/2017 (n = 5290; 20 countries) and 2020/2021 (n = 7294; 28 countries) and found very similar levels of identity leadership, team identification and burnout across the five years. An inspection of the 2020/2021 data at the onset of and later in the COVID-19 pandemic showed stable identity leadership levels and slightly higher levels of both burnout and team identification. Supporting our hypotheses, we found almost identical indirect effects (2016/2017, b = -0.132; 2020/2021, b = -0.133) across the five-year span in both datasets. Using a subset of n = 111 German participants surveyed over two waves, we found the indirect effect confirmed over time with identity leadership (at T1) predicting team identification and, in turn, burnout, three months later. Finally, we explored whether there could be a "too-much-of-a-good-thing" effect for identity leadership. Speaking against this, we found a u-shaped quadratic effect whereby ratings of identity leadership at the upper end of the distribution were related to even stronger team identification and a stronger indirect effect on reduced burnout.

COVID-19 , Leadership , Burnout, Psychological , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
Mult Scler Relat Disord ; 54: 103113, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284396


BACKGROUND: Considering the potential COVID-19 impact on pwMS health and the importance of vaccination for this population, we decided to assess: (a) pwMS' beliefs and knowledge on COVID-19 pandemic; (b) their acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination and (c) pwMS' opinions on general vaccination. METHODS: Observational study, based on a cross-sectional (10-20th September 2020) online survey, conducted in a cohort of pwMS' followed at two Portuguese hospitals. The survey included measures to characterize the sample and a questionnaire designed to assess the topics defined for this study. RESULTS: 270 respondents completed the full survey (response rate 58.2%). pwMS greatest concern during the pandemic was an aggravation of MS, especially by patients older than 50 years old. Almost 40% of the patients older than 50 felt that the pandemic negatively affected their MS related medical assistance. Most patients believed they would recover from COVID-19 infection. More than half of the responders feared a MS aggravation if they got COVID-19; this was more pronounced in patients with progressive MS. About 12% of the participants did not want to be vaccinated and almost 40% was unsure. Regarding vaccines in general, almost a third of the participants feared their side effects or MS related complications. CONCLUSION: Having knowledge of pwMS' opinions on COVID-19 pandemic impact and vaccination is useful to better address these issues. Fears and expectations towards vaccination must be discussed with pwMS.

COVID-19 , Multiple Sclerosis , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Middle Aged , Multiple Sclerosis/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2