Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32710305›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2021

A systematic concept analysis of 'technology dependent': challenging the terminology.

Maria Brenner, Denise Alexander, Mary Brigid Quirke, Jessica Eustace-Cook, Piet Leroy, Jay Berry, Martina Healy, Carmel Doyle, Kate Masterson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Maria BrennerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. brennerm@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-5288
Denise AlexanderSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Mary Brigid QuirkeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Jessica Eustace-CookTrinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Piet LeroyPediatric Intensive Care Unit & Pediatric Procedural Sedation Unit, Maastricht UMC and Faculty of Health, Life Sciences & Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Jay BerryDepartment of Medicine and Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Martina HealyDepartment of Paediatric Anaesthesia, Paediatric Critical Care Medicine and Paediatric Pain Medicine, Children's Health Ireland Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.
Carmel DoyleSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Kate MastersonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 803051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are an increasing number of children who are dependent on medical technology to sustain their lives. Although significant research on this issue is taking place, the terminology used is variable and the concept of technology dependence is ill-defined. A systematic concept analysis was conducted examining the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of the concept of technology dependent, as portrayed in the literature. We found that this concept refers to a wide range of clinical technology to support biological functioning across a dependency continuum, for a range of clinical conditions. It is commonly initiated within a complex biopsychosocial context and has wide ranging sequelae for the child and family, and health and social care delivery.Conclusion: The term technology dependent is increasingly redundant. It objectifies a heterogenous group of children who are assisted by a myriad of technology and who adapt to, and function with, this assistance in numerous ways. What is Known: • There are an increasing number of children who require medical technology to sustain their life, commonly referred to as technology dependent. This concept analysis critically analyses the relevance of the term technology dependent which is in use for over 30 years. What is New: • Technology dependency refers to a wide range of clinical technology to support biological functioning across a dependency continuum, for a range of clinical conditions. It is commonly initiated within a complex biopsychosocial context and has wide-ranging sequelae for the child and family, and health and social care delivery. • The paper shows that the term technology dependent is generally portrayed in the literature in a problem-focused manner. • This term is increasingly redundant and does not serve the heterogenous group of children who are assisted by a myriad of technology and who adapt to, and function with, this assistance in numerous ways. More appropriate child-centred terminology will be determined within the TechChild project.

Indexed as

FamilySocial SupportChildDelivery of Health CareHumansTechnologyChildComplex needsConcept analysisFamilyTechnology dependence

Identifiers

PMID32710305
PMCPMC7380164

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.