Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33328736›Full record

ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2020

Effectiveness of Digital Technologies to Support Nursing Care: Results of a Scoping Review.

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

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kai HuterUniversity of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7500-7042
Tobias KrickUniversity of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3296-1765
Dominik DomhoffUniversity of Bremen, High-Profile Area of Health Sciences, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5876-0334
Kathrin SeibertUniversity of Bremen, High-Profile Area of Health Sciences, Bremen, Germany.
Karin Wolf-OstermannUniversity of Bremen, High-Profile Area of Health Sciences, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8513-3125
Heinz RothgangUniversity of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6529-2129

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of digital technologies being developed or applied to support nursing care is extensive. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview on technologies for which results on positive or negative effects on persons in need of care, caregivers or care institutions are available and to appraise the reliability of these results.

methodsA scoping review design has been used to identify studies focussing on the effectiveness of digital technologies in nursing care for persons in need of care, caregivers or care institutions. The screening process included 19,510 scientific publications from 9 databases.

resultsA total of 123 single studies and 31 reviews were subjected to the analysis. The included technologies comprise nursing and health information technologies, such as assistive devices, information and communication technologies, sensors and robotics. The results show that there are many studies that demonstrate positive effects, but the level of evidence is mostly low and study sizes are often small. Hardly any technology has been researched intensively enough to produce conclusive results. Studies on a high level of evidence (RCTs) lack for most technological areas. Heterogeneous results in some areas indicate that effects may depend strongly on the mode and specific context into which the technologies are introduced.

conclusionDue to the limited evidence on effectiveness of digital technologies in nursing care, it is not surprising that care institutions are reluctant to put innovative technologies into practice. The scoping review indicates technology areas that should be subject to future research with higher quality studies. Research on outpatient, informal and cross-sectoral care should be intensified to further exploit the potential of digital technologies with a view to improving independence of care-recipients and unburdening formal and informal carers.

Indexed as

care-dependentcaregiversinnovative technologynursespatients

Identifiers

PMID33328736
PMCPMC7734078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.