Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28587640›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2017

Using technology to engage hospitalised patients in their care: a realist review.

Shelley Roberts, Wendy Chaboyer, Ruben Gonzalez, Andrea Marshall

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. From Documents to Digital: Co-Designing Nutrition Information Videos With Consumers and Dietitians.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploring Patient Mealtime Experience in an Acute Care Setting Using the Modified Austin Health Patient Mealtime Experience Tool.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Designing Inpatient Portals to Support Patient Agency and Dynamic Hospital Experiences.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Patient portal use and hospital outcomes.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shelley RobertsNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia. s.roberts@griffith.edu.au.
Wendy ChaboyerNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Ruben GonzalezSchool of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Andrea MarshallSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient participation in health care is associated with improved outcomes for patients and hospitals. New technologies are creating vast potential for patients to participate in care at the bedside. Several studies have explored patient use, satisfaction and perceptions of health information technology (HIT) interventions in hospital. Understanding what works for whom, under what conditions, is important when considering interventions successfully engaging patients in care. This realist review aimed to determine key features of interventions using bedside technology to engage hospital patients in their care and analyse these in terms of context, mechanisms and outcomes.

methodsA realist review was chosen to explain how and why complex HIT interventions work or fail within certain contexts. The review was guided by Pawson's realist review methodology, involving: clarifying review scope; searching for evidence; data extraction and evidence appraisal; synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. Author experience and an initial literature scope provided insight and review questions and theories (propositions) around why interventions worked were developed and iteratively refined. A purposive search was conducted to find evidence to support, refute or identify further propositions, which formed an explanatory model. Each study was 'mined' for evidence to further develop the propositions and model.

resultsInteractive learning was the overarching theme of studies using technology to engage patients in their care. Several propositions underpinned this, which were labelled: information sharing; self-assessment and feedback; tailored education; user-centred design; and support in use of HIT. As studies were mostly feasibility or usability studies, they reported patient-centred outcomes including patient acceptability, satisfaction and actual use of HIT interventions. For each proposition, outcomes were proposed to come about by mechanisms including improved communication, shared decision-making, empowerment and self-efficacy; which acted as facilitators to patient participation in care. Overall, there was a stronger representation of health than IT disciplines in studies reviewed, with a lack of IT input in terms of theoretical underpinning, methodological design and reporting of outcomes.

conclusionHIT interventions have great potential for engaging hospitalised patients in their care. However, stronger interdisciplinary collaboration between health and IT researchers is needed for effective design and evaluation of HIT interventions.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient ParticipationTechnologyDecision MakingHumansSelf-AssessmentBeside technologyComplex interventionsHealth care interventionsHealth information technologyHospital carePatient-centred carePatient engagementPatient participationRealist reviewTechnology

Identifiers

PMID28587640
PMCPMC5461760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.