Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40441133›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2026

Parents and Health Care Providers' Perspectives on Vital Signs Monitoring Technologies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An International Survey.

Eva Senechal, Daniel Radeschi, Robert Kearney, Wissam Shalish, Guilherme Sant'Anna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of perinatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Eva SenechalDepartment of Experimental Medicine Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Daniel RadeschiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Robert KearneyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Wissam ShalishDepartment of Experimental Medicine Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Guilherme Sant'AnnaDepartment of Experimental Medicine Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the views of parents and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) health care providers (HCPs) on current wired vital signs monitoring and future wireless alternatives.Prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2023, targeting three groups: (1) NICU parents, (2) physicians, and (3) nurses and respiratory therapists (RT) and physiotherapists (PT). A 17-question survey was developed to assess several perspectives with current vital signs monitoring and a possible wireless monitoring system. NICU parents completed paper surveys and HCPs participated via an anonymous electronic survey. The original English survey was tailored for different respondent groups, translated into French, Spanish, and Portuguese, and distributed through neonatal research networks. Responses from each group were analyzed as totals (%), with within-group comparisons assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, between-group comparisons were conducted using the chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.A total of 1,141 responses were included (25 parents, 438 physicians, and 678 nurses, RTs, and PTs). Only 52% of parents were satisfied with current wired systems; 68% reported wires hindered infant handling, and 52% cited interference with skin-to-skin care. Both physicians and HCPs expressed low satisfaction with the current system. Common concerns included tangling, skin irritation, and workload. Support for wireless technology introduction was high across all groups (parents = 60%, physicians = 91%, and nurses, RTs, and PTs = 87%), with main perceived benefits including improved kangaroo mother care (KMC), reduced patient discomfort, and enhanced bonding. All groups expressed accuracy, safety, battery life, and cost concerns of a possible wireless system.Parents and HCPs are generally dissatisfied with the current NICU vital signs monitoring systems, primarily due to concerns with wires and cables and interference with KMC. Wireless technologies were mostly supported, but data on reliability, safety, and economic feasibility will be critical for development and successful implementation. · Parents and HCPs dislike wired systems due to tangling, skin irritation, and interference with care.. · Support for wireless monitoring was viewed positively by parents and very positively by HCP.. · Wireless systems were seen as beneficial for KC, reducing patient discomfort, and improving bonding.. · However, each group expressed concerns about a potential future wireless monitoring system.. · Accuracy, battery life, radiation, and cost must be addressed before wireless systems can be adopted..

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelIntensive Care Units, NeonatalParentsVital SignsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesWireless Technology

Identifiers

PMID40441133
PMCPMC12768579

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.