Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32041764›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020

Digital interventions for parents of acutely ill children and their treatment-seeking behaviour: a systematic review.

Emily Donovan, Christopher R Wilcox, Sanjay Patel, Alastair D Hay, Paul Little, Merlin L Willcox

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Age of Hubris.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily DonovanDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Christopher R WilcoxNational Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Facility, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton.
Sanjay PatelUniversity Hospital Southampton, Southampton.
Alastair D HayCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Paul LittleDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Merlin L WillcoxDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsultations for self-limiting infections in children are increasing. It has been proposed that digital technology could be used to enable parents' decision making in terms of self-care and treatment seeking.

aimTo evaluate the evidence that digital interventions facilitate parents deciding whether to self-care or seek treatment for acute illnesses in children. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of studies undertaken worldwide.

methodSearches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were made to identify studies (of any design) published between database inception and January 2019 that assessed digital interventions for parents of children (from any healthcare setting) with acute illnesses. The primary outcome of interest was whether the use of digital interventions reduced the use of urgent care services.

resultsThree studies were included in the review. They assessed two apps and one website: Children's On-Call - a US advice-only app; Should I See a Doctor? - a Dutch self-triage app for any acute illness; and Strategy for Off-Site Rapid Triage (SORT) for Kids - a US self-triage website for influenza-like illness. None of the studies involved parents during intervention development and it was shown that many parents did not find the two apps easy to use. The sensitivity of self-triage interventions was 84% for Should I See a Doctor? compared with nurse triage, and 93.3% for SORT for Kids compared with the need for emergency-department intervention; however, both had lower specificity (74% and 13%, respectively). None of the interventions demonstrated reduced use of urgent-care services.

conclusionThere is little evidence to support the use of digital interventions to help parent and/or carers looking after children with acute illness. Future research should involve parents during intervention development, and adequately powered trials are needed to assess the impact of such interventions on health services and the identification of children who are seriously ill.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDigital TechnologyPatient Acceptance of Health CareRemote ConsultationAdultChildHumansParentsSelf CareTriageacute diseasechild healthdigital interventionmhealthprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32041764
PMCPMC7015163
OpenAlexW3005963820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.