Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34245077›Full record

SynthesisJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2022

People with intellectual disabilities living in care facilities engaging in virtual social contact: A systematic review of the feasibility and effects on well-being.

Lianne Bakkum, Carlo Schuengel, Paula S Sterkenburg, Noud Frielink, Petri J C M Embregts, Johanna Clasien de Schipper, Annet Ten Brug, Anne Tharner

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Lianne BakkumDepartment of Clinical Child and Family Studies and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2880-6853
Carlo SchuengelDepartment of Clinical Child and Family Studies and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5501-3341
Paula S SterkenburgDepartment of Clinical Child and Family Studies and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6014-7539
Noud FrielinkAcademische Werkplaats Leven met een verstandelijke beperking, Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8489-8409
Petri J C M EmbregtsAcademische Werkplaats Leven met een verstandelijke beperking, Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3567-1528
Johanna Clasien de SchipperDepartment of Clinical Child and Family Studies and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3557-5301
Annet Ten BrugAcademische Werkplaats EMB, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0898-1988
Anne TharnerDepartment of Clinical Child and Family Studies and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Academische Werkplaats EMB, Rijksuniversiteit GroningenAcademische Werkplaats Leven met een verstandelijke beperking, Tranzo, Tilburg UniversityAcademische Werkplaats's Heeren Loo - VUAcademische Werkplaats Sociale relaties en gehechtheid, Bartiméus - VUProject Digitaal op bezoek bij mensen met beperkingenWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208155/Z/17/ZZonMw 10430022010013ZonMw 641001101ZonMw 641001103ZonMw 641001104ZonMw 641001105
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people with disabilities living in home care facilities could not receive visitors. The use of virtual social contact has been recommended by health authorities. This systematic review examined the scientific evidence of the use and feasibility of information and communication technology (ICT) for social contact by people with intellectual disabilities living in care facilities, and potential effects on well-being.

methodsFive databases were searched using traditional systematic screening and machine-learning supported screening. Findings are presented in a narrative synthesis using thematic analysis.

resultsNine studies were included. We described three themes: means of ICT used for social contact; effects on well-being; and benefits, barriers, and preconditions.

conclusionsEngaging in virtual social contact may be feasible for people with severe to mild intellectual disabilities, but there is little concrete evidence that this can be used as an alternative for in-person contact.

Indexed as

COVID-19Intellectual DisabilityFeasibility StudiesHumansPandemicsCOVID-19information and communication technologyinterpersonal relationshipssocial contactsystematic reviewwell-being

Identifiers

PMID34245077
PMCPMC9291764

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.