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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Cross-Device Platform for Robotic Systems in Nursing Care: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical Nurses' Perceptions of Digital Nursing Technology: A Qualitative Analysis Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).Nursing open · 2025Article
- Nurses' perspectives on the adoption of new smart technologies for patient care: focus group interviews.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Sustainable Implementation of Digital Assistive Technologies in Health Care Through a Simplified Interaction and Control Platform: Protocol for a Cocreative Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- German version of the engagement of a person with dementia scale: translation and initial application experiences.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025Article
- Integrating Digital Assistive Technologies Into Care Processes: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Continuing Education Training "Beratende für Digitale Gesundheitsversorgung" ("Consultant for Digital Healthcare"): Protocol for an Effectiveness Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Mapping Theories, Models, and Frameworks to Evaluate Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Nurse-led virtual interventions in managing chronic diseases: a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Handheld Computer Devices to Support Clinical Decision-making in Acute Nursing Practice: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Perception of Nursing Professionals Working in a Central Sterile Supplies Department regarding Health Conditions, Workload, Ergonomic Risks, and Functional Readaptation.Advances in preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue: "Nursing Education and Research in the Remote Era".Asian nursing research · 2021Article
- Evaluation frameworks for digital nursing technologies: analysis, assessment, and guidance. An overview of the literature.BMC nursing · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of Digital Technologies to Support Nursing Care: Results of a Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.