Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35913640›Full record

Observational studyIntensive care medicine2022

Psychological distress and morbidity of family members experiencing virtual visiting in intensive care during COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

Louise Rose, Amelia Cook, Juliana Onwumere, Ella Terblanche, Natalie Pattison, Victoria Metaxa, Joel Meyer

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. [Challenges of and Responses to Mental Health Problems in the Post-COVID-19 Era].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors.

Louise RoseFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, Rm 1.13, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8WA, UK. louise.rose@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1700-3972
Amelia CookCicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Juliana OnwumereDepartment of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Ella TerblancheFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, Rm 1.13, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8WA, UK.
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
Victoria MetaxaKing's College Hospital, London, UK.
Joel MeyerGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care units (ICUs) around the world introduced virtual visiting to mediate the psychological impact of in-person visiting restrictions. Our objective was to evaluate levels of distress, depression, anxiety, and stress among family members experiencing virtual visits.

methodsMulti-centre prospective observational study recruiting adult family members of critically ill patients in the United Kingdom (UK) using a bespoke virtual visiting solution (aTouchAway). We recruited participants and administered validated questionnaires digitally via their aTouchAway account. Prior to first virtual visit, participants completed the Distress Thermometer (score range 0-10) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS)-21. Following first and subsequent virtual visits, participants repeated the Distress Thermometer and completed the Discrete Emotions Questionnaire.

resultsWe recruited 2166 adult family members of ICU patients in 37 UK hospitals. Most were grown up children (33%) or spouses/partners (23%). Most (91%) were ≤ 65 years. Mean (SD) pre-virtual-visit Distress Thermometer score was 7 (2.6) with 1349/2153 (62%) reporting severe distress. Pre-visit Distress Thermometer scores were associated with relationship type (spouse/partner OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27-2.12) but not family member age, or length of ICU stay. Mean (SD) post-visit Distress Thermometer score provided by 762 (35%) participants was 1.6 (3.2) points lower than pre-visit (P < 0.001). Of participants experiencing multiple visits, 22% continued to report severe distress. Median (IQR) pre-visit DASS-21 score was 18 (2-42) (1754 participants). Severe-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, or stress were reported by 249 (14%), 321 (18%), and 165 (9%) participants, respectively. Participants reported a range of emotions with reassurance being the most common, anger being the least.

conclusionFamily members exposed to COVID-19 pandemic ICU visiting restrictions experienced severe distress. One fifth of family members reported severe-to-extremely sever anxiety or depression. Distress score magnitude and prevalence of severe distress decreased after undertaking one or more virtual visits.

Indexed as

COVID-19Psychological DistressAdultAnxietyChildCritical CareDepressionHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsPrevalenceStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19FamilyIntensive carePsychological distressVirtual visiting

Identifiers

PMID35913640
PMCPMC9340748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.