Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31221133›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Digital technology and nursing care: a scoping review on acceptance, effectiveness and efficiency studies of informal and formal care technologies.

Tobias Krick, Kai Huter, Dominik Domhoff, Annika Schmidt, Heinz Rothgang, Karin Wolf-Ostermann

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
82.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 296 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tobias KrickSOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Mary-Somerville-Straße 3, 28359, Bremen, Germany. tkrick@uni-bremen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3296-1765
Kai HuterSOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Mary-Somerville-Straße 3, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Dominik DomhoffInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Annika SchmidtInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Heinz RothgangSOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Mary-Somerville-Straße 3, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Karin Wolf-OstermannInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
University of Bremen · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 16SV7821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe existence, usage and benefits of digital technologies in nursing care are relevant topics in the light of the current discussion on technologies as possible solutions to problems such as the shortage of skilled workers and the increasing demand for long-term care. A lack of good empirical overviews of existing technologies in the present literature prompted us to conduct this review. Its purpose was to map the field of digital technologies for informal and formal care that have already been explored in terms of acceptance, effectiveness and efficiency (AEE), and to show the scope of the used methods, target settings, target groups and fields of support.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, the Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies, GeroLit and CareLit. In addition, project websites were manually screened for relevant publications.

resultsSeven hundred fifteen papers were included in the review. Effectiveness studies have been most frequently performed for ICT, robots and sensors. Acceptance studies often focussed on ICT, robots and EHR/EMR. Efficiency studies were generally rare. Many studies were found to have a low level of evidence. Experimental designs with small numbers and without control groups were the most common methods used to evaluate acceptance and effectiveness. Study designs with high evidence levels were most commonly found for ICT, robots and e-learning. Technologies evaluated for informal caregivers and children or indicated for formal care at home or in cross-sectoral care were rare.

conclusionWe recommend producing high-quality evaluations on existing digital technologies for AEE in real-life settings rather than systematic reviews with low-quality studies. More focus should be placed on research into efficiency. Future research should be devoted to a closer examination of the applied AEE evaluation methods. Policymakers should provide funding to enable large-scale, long-term evaluations of technologies in the practice of care, filling the research gaps for technologies, target settings and target groups identified in this review.

Indexed as

Nursing CareTechnologyHumansNursing Evaluation ResearchAcceptanceCareDigitalEffectEffectivenessEfficiencyEvaluationNursingScoping ReviewTechnology

Identifiers

PMID31221133
PMCPMC6585079
OpenAlexW2952147205

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.