Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32209099›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Measuring the effectiveness of digital nursing technologies: development of a comprehensive digital nursing technology outcome framework based on a scoping review.

Tobias Krick, Kai Huter, Kathrin Seibert, Dominik Domhoff, Karin Wolf-Ostermann

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Tobias KrickSOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Mary-Somerville-Straße 3, 28359, Bremen, Germany. tkrick@uni-bremen.de.
Kai HuterSOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Mary-Somerville-Straße 3, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Kathrin SeibertHigh-profile Area of Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Dominik DomhoffHigh-profile Area of Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Karin Wolf-OstermannHigh-profile Area of Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359, Bremen, Germany.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundDigital nursing technologies (DNT) comprise an expanding, highly diverse field of research, explored using a wide variety of methods and tools. Study results are therefore difficult to compare, which raises the question how effectiveness of DNT can be adequately measured. Methods currently used might not be sufficient for certain specific nursing contexts. A comprehensive outcome framework that shows the multitude of possible outcome areas could be useful to generate more comparable results. The aim of the present study is to develop an outcome framework for DNT and to indicate which outcome areas have been most frequently evaluated in previous studies and how this has been done.

methodsWe combined an inductive and deductive approach to develop the framework. The numerical analysis is based on a scoping review focussing on the effectiveness of DNT for persons in need of care, formal or informal caregivers or care institutions. Nine databases were included in the screening: Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, the Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies, GeroLit and CareLit. Additional literature searches and expert interviews were included.

resultsThe developed framework comprises four outcome target groups and 47 outcome areas. There are considerable differences in the researched outcome areas for the individual outcome target groups. Persons in need of care were by far the most frequently surveyed, particularly with respect to their psychological health. There are much fewer studies on formal and informal caregivers, and it is particularly noticeable that the quality of life of both groups has rarely been investigated. Care process quality was most frequently researched for organisations.

conclusionWe were able to provide a comprehensive DNT outcome framework, thereby identifying the outcome tools used and the less researched outcome areas. We recommend a detailed investigation of all areas and tools in future research projects with a view to initiating a discussion on the differing importance of existing outcome areas and on a standardisation of outcome tools. We also recommend the development of outcome areas for the macro level of effectiveness assessment.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyNursingHumansNursing Evaluation ResearchCareDigitalEffectEffectivenessEvidenceFrameworkNursingOutcomeTechnology

Identifiers

PMID32209099
PMCPMC7092516

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.