Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29305339›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2018

Digital Clinical Communication for Families and Caregivers of Children or Young People With Short- or Long-Term Conditions: Rapid Review.

Xavier Armoiry, Jackie Sturt, Emma Elizabeth Phelps, Clare-Louise Walker, Rachel Court, Frances Taggart, Paul Sutcliffe, Frances Griffiths, Helen Atherton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Creating a communication space in the healthcare context: Children's perspective of using the eHealth service, Sisom.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Making technology-enabled health care work in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Xavier ArmoiryWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1166-0453
Jackie SturtFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1281-1401
Emma Elizabeth PhelpsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4810-3650
Clare-Louise WalkerWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1737-6819
Rachel CourtWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-2586
Frances TaggartWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7478-0386
Paul SutcliffeWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4198-4678
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4173-1438
Helen AthertonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925

Funding

Department of Health 12/209/51
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe communication relationship between parents of children or young people with health conditions and health professionals is an important part of treatment, but it is unclear how far the use of digital clinical communication tools may affect this relationship.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to describe, assess the feasibility of, and explore the impact of digital clinical communication between families or caregivers and health professionals.

methodsWe searched the literature using 5 electronic databases. We considered all types of study design published in the English language from January 2009 to August 2015. The population of interest included families and caregivers of children and young people aged less than 26 years with any type of health condition. The intervention was any technology permitting 2-way communication.

resultsWe included 31 articles. The main designs were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=10), cross-sectional studies (n=9), pre- and postintervention uncontrolled (pre/post) studies (n=7), and qualitative interview studies (n=2); 6 had mixed-methods designs. In the majority of cases, we considered the quality rating to be fair. Many different types of health condition were represented. A breadth of digital communication tools were included: videoconferencing or videoconsultation (n=14), and Web messaging or emails (n=12). Health care professionals were mainly therapists or cognitive behavioral therapists (n=10), physicians (n=8), and nurses (n=6). Studies were very heterogeneous in terms of outcomes. Interventions were mainly evaluated using satisfaction or acceptance, or outcomes relating to feasibility. Clinical outcomes were rarely used. The RCTs showed that digital clinical communication had no impact in comparison with standard care. Uncontrolled pre/post studies showed good rates of satisfaction or acceptance. Some economic studies suggested that digital clinical communication may save costs.

conclusionsThis rapid review showed an emerging body of literature on the use of digital clinical communication to improve families' and caregivers' involvement in the health management of children or young people. Further research with appropriate study designs and longer-term outcome measures should be encouraged.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035467; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD 42016 035467(Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vpgZU1FU).

Indexed as

CommunicationAdolescentAdultCaregiversChildCross-Sectional StudiesFamilyFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchYoung Adultcaregiverschild healthchildrendigital clinical communicationfamilyprofessional-family relationsyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID29305339
PMCPMC5775486

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.