ArticleBMJ open2024
Barriers and facilitators to implementing psychosocial digital health interventions for older adults presenting to emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing digital psychosocial interventions for older adults presenting to emergency departments: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Technology Adoption in Emergency Departments: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOlder adults can face challenges when seeking care from emergency departments (EDs) due to presenting with multiple comorbidities and non-specific symptoms. Psychosocial care is a possible target to help improve ED care for this population. It is possible that digital health technologies can be implemented within emergency settings to improve the provision of psychosocial care. However, it is unclear what the barriers and facilitators are to implementing digital psychosocial interventions for older adults presenting to the ED. Therefore, the scoping review aims to determine what are these barriers and facilitators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus will be searched. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with a specialist research librarian and will cover three key concepts: EDs, digital health technologies and older adults. Additionally, the first 100 hits of a Google Scholar search will be screened for inclusion. We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies that investigate ED digital interventions for psychosocial care where the primary focus is the views, attitudes, experiences and perceptions of patients, families and staff. After extracting all data, analysis and synthesis will follow the 'best-fit framework synthesis' approach and the Theoretical Domains Framework will be used to identify barriers and facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review since only publicly available data will be analysed and appraised. The findings of the scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
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.