ArticleHeliyon2023
Telenursing: The view of care professionals in selected EU countries. A pilot study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations From a Health Care Provider's Perspective for Better Implementation of Telemedicine and Telenursing: Descriptive Qualitative Approach.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Acceptability and Usefulness of Telenursing from Nurses' Perspectives: A Descriptive Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The effect of tele-nursing on premature infants and their mothers: a systematic review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Exploring Public Perceptions of Telenursing: A Q Methodology Study.Nursing open · 2024Article
- Telenursing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic-representative sociological survey.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the growth of digital nursing, several studies have focused on recording patients' views on remote care, or specialised nurse staffing aspects. This is the first international survey on telenursing focused exclusively on clinical nurses that analyses the dimensions of usefulness, acceptability, and appropriateness of telenursing from the staff point of view. Methods: A previously validated structured questionnaire including demographic variables, 18 responses with a Likert-5 scale, three dichotomous questions, and one overall percentual estimation of holistic nursing care susceptible to being undertaken by telenursing, was administered (from 1 September to 30 November 2022) to 225 clinical and community nurses from three selected EU countries. Data analysis: descriptive data, classical and Rasch testing. Results: The results show adequacy of the model for measurement of the domains of usefulness, acceptability, and appropriateness of telenursing (overall Cronbach's alpha 0.945, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.952 and Bartlett's p < 0.001). Answers in favour of telenursing ranked 4 out of 5 in Likert scale, both globally and by the three domains. Rasch: reliability coefficient 0.94, Warm's main weighted likelihood estimate reliability 0.95. In the ANOVA analysis, the results for Portugal were significantly higher than those for Spain and Poland, both overall and for each of the dimensions. Respondents with bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees score significantly higher than those with certificates or diplomas. Multiple regression did not yield additional data of interest. Conclusions: The tested model proved to be valid, but although the majority of nurses are in favour of telenursing, given the nature of the care, which is mainly face-to-face, according to the respondents, the chances of carrying out their activities by telenursing is only 35.3%. The survey provides useful information on what can be expected from the implementation of telenursing and the questionnaire proves to be a useful tool to be applied in other countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.