Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31345261›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Interventions to promote patients and families' involvement in adult intensive care settings: a protocol for a mixed-method systematic review.

Andreas Xyrichis, Simon Fletcher, Sally Brearley, Julia Philippou, Ed Purssell, Marius Terblanche, Anne Marie Rafferty, Scott Reeves

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas XyrichisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo, London, UK. andreas.xyrichis@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2359-4337
Simon FletcherKingston and St. George's University London, St. George's University, Hunter Wing 6th Floor, Tooting, London, UK.
Sally BrearleyKingston and St. George's University London, St. George's University, Hunter Wing 6th Floor, Tooting, London, UK.
Julia PhilippouFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo, London, UK.
Ed PurssellFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo, London, UK.
Marius TerblancheGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Lambeth, London, UK.
Anne Marie RaffertyFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo, London, UK.
Scott ReevesKingston and St. George's University London, St. George's University, Hunter Wing 6th Floor, Tooting, London, UK.
King's College London · GBSt George's, University of London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0416-20021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been an identified need for greater patient and family member involvement in healthcare. This is particularly relevant in an intensive care unit (ICU), as the family provides a key communicative and practical link between patient and clinician. Family members have been deemed a positive beneficial influence on ICU care and recovery processes, yet they themselves are often emotionally affected after discharge. There has been no standardised evidenced-based approach which explores research on family member involvement and the range and quality of contributions remain unclear. This project will undertake a systematic review to assess the evidence base for interventions designed to promote patient and family member involvement in adult intensive care settings and develop a comprehensive typology of interventions for use by clinicians, patients and carers.

methodsThe following databases will be searched without date restriction: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Joanna Briggs and Cochrane Libraries. Manual searches of recent back issues of leading ICU and patient experience journals will also be undertaken, as will the reference lists of included studies. Unpublished literature will be sought through grey literature databases, including GreyLit and OpenGrey. All evaluation studies that consider intervention activities to promote patient and family member involvement in adult ICUs will be included; all research designs will be eligible. We will seek to include studies that report on a mixture of relevant outcomes for patients and family members. Abstracts and papers will be independently screened by at least two members of the team to determine their inclusion. Included papers will be assessed for methodological rigour using a standard rating approach, which assesses 'quality of study' and 'quality of information'. Quality assessment will be completed by at least two members of the team. Data on interventions, evaluation methods and outcomes will be collated using a predetermined extraction table. These are likely to be heterogeneous in nature, which will mean that the review will follow a narrative approach to synthesis. DISCUSSION: The review will provide valuable and rigorous insight into the range and quality of interventions available to promote patient and family member involvement in ICU. This is the first step towards addressing the absence of a synthesis of research for this context, and will, in addition, develop a typology of available interventions that will help service users and clinicians make informed decisions about the approaches to patient and family member involvement which they might want to adopt. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018086325).

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationProfessional-Family RelationsAdultCommunicationCritical CareFamilyHumansIntensive Care UnitsQuality of Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicFamily member involvementIntensive careSystematic reviewTypology

Identifiers

PMID31345261
PMCPMC6657078
OpenAlexW2963562414

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.