Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36514156›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Digital technologies in routine palliative care delivery: an exploratory qualitative study with health care professionals in Germany.

Susann May, Dunja Bruch, Anne Gehlhaar, Felizitas Linderkamp, Kerstin Stahlhut, Martin Heinze, Matthew Allsop, Felix Muehlensiepen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. E-Mental Health Interventions in Inpatient Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  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

8 authors.

Susann MayCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3601-7432
Dunja BruchDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Center Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, Bernau bei Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9511-8487
Anne GehlhaarCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Felizitas LinderkampCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin StahlhutDepartment of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Brandenburg Medical School, Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg, Germany.
Martin HeinzeCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3645-1033
Matthew AllsopAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-0194
Felix MuehlensiepenCenter for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany. felix.muehlensiepen@mhb-fontane.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8571-7286

Funding

Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane Internal Research Funding (03-2020 IF)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives, experiences and preferences towards digital technology use in routine palliative care delivery.

methodsHCPs (n = 19) purposively selected from a sample of settings that reflect routine palliative care delivery (i.e. specialized outpatient palliative care, inpatient palliative care, inpatient hospice care in both rural and urban areas of the German states of Brandenburg and Berlin) participated in an explorative, qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Interview data were analyzed using structured qualitative content analysis.

resultsDigital technologies are widely used in routine palliative care and are well accepted by HCPs. Central functions of digital technologies as experienced in palliative care are coordination of work processes, patient-centered care, and communication. Especially in outpatient care, they facilitate overcoming spatial and temporal distances. HCPs attribute various benefits to digital technologies that contribute to better coordinated, faster, more responsive, and overall more effective palliative care. Simultaneously, participants preferred technology as an enhancement not replacement of care delivery. HCPs fear that digital technologies, if overused, will contribute to dehumanization and thus significantly reduce the quality of palliative care.

conclusionDigital technology is already an essential part of routine palliative care delivery. While generally perceived as useful by HCPs, digital technologies are considered as having limitations and carrying risks. Hence, their use and consequences must be carefully considered, as they should discreetly complement but not replace human interaction in palliative care delivery.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingPalliative CareDigital TechnologyHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchDigital healthPalliative careQualitative researchTelemedicineUser experience

Identifiers

PMID36514156
PMCPMC9745710

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.