ArticleDigital health
Using inpatient telehealth for family engagement: A mixed methods study of perceptions from patients, families, and care team providers.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of digital communication tools on patients, family members and health care professionals in adult ICUs: a mixed-methods systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Surrogate resilience and clinical titration of presence in the open intensive care unit: a systematic narrative synthesis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Knowledge comparison amongst telehealth service utilized and never-utilized adults in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Background: The Inpatient Telehealth Program permits family to remotely communicate with the patient and care team through secure, live video. We aimed to assess the implementation of this program for family engagement from the perspectives of patients, families, and providers. Methods: We used a convergent mixed methods design. The quantitative component was a cross-sectional analysis of surveys assessing patient, family, and provider experience. The qualitative component used thematic analysis of patient, family, and provider interviews plus survey free text responses. We performed memo-writing and coding. We developed hypotheses about relationships among categories and identified analytic themes. We used data transformation and narrative discussion to report the integrated findings. Results: Surveys from 214 individuals (33 patients, 145 family, 36 providers) were evaluated. Mean (standard deviation) experience ratings (1-poor, 5-best) were 4.0 (1.5) for patients, 4.6 (0.8) for family, and 4.0 (1.4) for providers. We received 134 free text responses and conducted 21 interviews. Three themes emerged: (1) inpatient telehealth enhanced patient and family experience through strengthened relationships and increased support; (2) inpatient telehealth enhanced patient care through improved information sharing and engagement; (3) low awareness of the program limited adoption. Quantitative and qualitative data aligned in that participants perceived inpatient telehealth to be valuable; however, surveys revealed that patients and providers have relatively lower satisfaction with the program. Conclusion: Inpatient telehealth for family engagement was perceived to improve family-centeredness of care. Future work is needed to overcome implementation challenges and to increase awareness of this resource among patients and families.
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.