Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39555387›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2024

How can family members of patients in the intensive care unit be supported? A systematic review of qualitative reviews, meta-synthesis, and novel recommendations for nursing care.

Thora Gunnlaugsdóttir, Rannveig J Jónasdóttir, Kristín Björnsdóttir, Marianne Elisabeth Klinke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2024. 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. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

4 authors.

Thora GunnlaugsdóttirFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Rannveig J JónasdóttirFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Kristín BjörnsdóttirFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Marianne Elisabeth KlinkeFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Families are an important part of the intensive care unit (ICU) team. Being a family member in the ICU can be distressing due to interacting factors, such as the critical condition of the patient, the responsibility of acting as the patient's advocate, and partaking in decision-making related to treatment. Nurses need to be aware of the family's well-being throughout the patient's ICU stay. Objective: To synthesize reviews of family members' experiences and needs during patients' ICU admission and develop recommendations to support nurses in strengthening their relationships with families. Design: Systematic review of qualitative and mixed method reviews. Data sources: Extensive searches without time limits identified systematic reviews published until June 27, 2024 in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reviews were eligible if they provided knowledge required to inform high-quality on-site family care during the patient's ICU admission. Review methods: Quality appraisal adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Themes were generated by integrating review results and narratively summarizing the main contents. Finally, findings were translated into clinical practice recommendations by using the four-component GRADE-CERQual assessment (low to high recommendation grades). Recommendations were backtracked to primary research studies for validation. All recommendations were critically reflected upon with an expert panel of ICU nurses. Results: The nine included reviews were built on 124 original studies published between 1995 and 2021. One central theme, "Emotional limbo and extreme moments", mirrored the core of families' experiences characterized by waiting time, i.e., for the patient to get better or worse, and overwhelming emotions and confusion brought about by the patient's critical illness. Three sub-themes reflected actions to counterbalance emotional challenges: a) Responding to family members' existential needs, b) Establishing optimal grounds for reciprocal communication, and c) Enhancing a humanizing approach and atmosphere in the ICU. The meta-synthesis resulted in 11 aggregated recommendations. The findings highlighted that nurses should proactively address emotional issues to help preserve families' ability to keep going, allow families to be present and function as a part of the team, and inform families of the patient's situation and how they can practically help. Conclusions: Nurses should use multiple adjustable approaches to alleviate family's burden during an ICU stay. Findings help nurses to prioritize care and make physical and emotional space for family caregivers. Results emphasize the need to facilitate the agency of family caregivers and reinforce their strengths through nurse-family dialogues. Tweetable abstract: Novel recommendations to enhance nursing care of family members to patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Indexed as

Critical care unitExperienceFamily centered careFamily membersFamily nursingICUIntensive care unitsMeta-synthesisRelatives

Identifiers

PMID39555387
PMCPMC11567050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.